AN OBSCENE FEINT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7047, 8 February 1910, Page 8

AN OBSCENE FEINT

" NEW ZEALAND TEUTH.” [[MANAGER OF THE PAPER BEFOEE THE COURT. FOUND GUILTY AND REMANDED FOR SENTENCE. His Honor Mr Justice Chapman, pro-, siding in the criminal jurisdiction of the Supremo Court, was engaged during tlie whole of yesterday in the hearing of the case concerning the publication of alleged obscene matter in the' newspaper "New Zealand Truth." The Imanager of tho paper, Henry Stephen Cobum, was charged with having distributed a publication of an obscene nature, tending to corrupt morals. Air M. Myers prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr T. M. Wilford, with him Mr A. Dunn, appeared on behalf of the’ hocused.

Tho jury was composed as follows: Henry Joseph Exton (foreman), John. Steward, Frederick James Rudge, Thomas; Gardiner, Thomas Caldwell, Henry! Sovcn, Wallace Simmons, James Edward, ißaw&on, llenry Heron, Robert Brown, [John Keep Burn, John Haughton Fairbairn. OPENING ADDRESS. Mr Myers, In opening the case, emphasised tho importance of the matter before. the Court. It was considered a very (serious matter for a tradesman to adulterate his goods, and thus poison the foodies of his customers. How much more serious was it therefore for a person to poison the minds of the pubho •by means of filthy literature? The accused in the present case was the man-i ager of a newspaper, the proprietor—or, .os ho was called in the paper itself, tho [conductor—was not a resident of New [Zealand. In his absence from the Dominion, the manager was responsible for Ithe paper. This must be so, for otherwise tho proprietor, in New South Wales, could arrange for the > publica-j tion of any filth ho liked. Neither law nor reason would tolerate such a position of affairs. The copy of the paper forming the sub-' ject of the case wao that'of November 13th last, containing an article winch, the Crown submitted was obscene, and 1 on which the jury would have to de-, oide. When tho question of prosecution! iu connection with the article was, be-; ing considered in tho first place—not necessarily of the present accused—thei [accused went to the police and told them Ithat he was manager of the newspaper, and asked to be made responsible. It the paper and those connected with it! stood fox what was right, just, and., honest, that was exactly the attitude) Ithat would be expected from the mantitrer. Ho did not wish to see an 'under- 1 strapper suffer the prosecution. "Frosecure me/* he would say, 111 take the! question the jury would' have to consider would be whether tho ,artj.cle in question, was obscene. '‘The (test of obscenity,” Lord Chief Justice ’Cocfcbum had said, "is this—whether the tendency of the matter is to deprave' and corrupt those whose minds aire open to such immoral influence, and into whose hands the publication may fall/' "Truth," counsel continued, was a pub- 1 lie print, published every week in VVel-i lington, and according to an announce-i merit in its own pages, had the "largest circulation in New Zealand/' It was. sold by newspaper vendors, and in the! street by men and little boys and girls.. Consequently it might fall into the bands of all sorts and descriptions of people. What the jury had to consider' was whether the article complained of was obscene. "If you citizens of this l community," said Mr Myers to the jurymen, "are going to permit a public print containing obscene -artidies such as this to circulate amongst the women, boys, and girls of the community, what ds New Zealand coming to?" Much had been heard iu Court on a certain occasion of the deleterious effect of "penny dreadfuls." The effect of this class of litera-i ture was said to bo that the youth who) read it was prompted to go and do like-i wise, to emulate the deeds of the persons held up in the books as heroes. If* this was so in the case of the "penny l dreadful," was it not likely that it,' would be exactly the same in the case of. the kind of literature now complained! of? The two cases were exactly parallel J THE DISTRIBUTION. Detective Alexander Bailey produced a! copy of "Truth*" of November 13th,! which’ he had purchased at the office of the paper on November 17th. The paper had been] publicly sold in the streets on. the previous Saturday. The] napeor was sold by a olerk, and oosti ttiteepenice. The Witness also bought! copies of the paper from Kenneth Aitken and Herbert MowteLl, newsagents,, Cross-examined by Mr Wilford, thd witness said the eleerk who had gold him. the paper was named Joseph Gilchrist,] It was not a man named Minifie. Herbert Mowteil, tobacconist and news*) agent. Taranaki afreet, said that he sold "Truth" in Mg shop. Every week hel sold about tivourty-fouir copies. The accused he had known about sdx months, chiefly ito collection with tho collection qf aooounrfa. The wiitneaj himself had been before another Court and had been fined for selling copies of the paper concerned in, tho present case. Kenneth’ Aiitken, bookseller's assistant, also gave evidence of the public sale of the paper. "I AM THE MANAGER/'

Chief-Detective Brobarg said he had been in Wellington all the time "Truth" had been published. The first manager be thought was Mr McKinnon,, who was succeeded about five months ago by the accused. The proprietor of the paper, John Norton, was not domiciled in New Zealand. The accused was manager controlling the paper on November 18th. On December 3rd he had called. on. the witness in connection with pending prosecutions. He said ho had been . manager for three months, and preferred to bo prosecuted himself rather thau that any of his clerics be brought before the Court. Ho said ho would take all responsibility. So far as the witness knew there was no one else in New Zealand responsible for the- control and distribution! of the paper. "Truth” was sold in the office, in l shops, and on the streets, and could be purchased by anyone. . , , Questioned by Sir Wilford, the witness said that from whiat Coburn told him he did not conclude that the accused was responsible for what went into the paper, but only for its distribution. This concluded the case for the Crown. POINTS OF LAW. Mr Wilford raised several points of law. Ho submitted that there had been no proof of the application, of tho term A'-knorwinigly” to the accused's action. There' had been nothing to show that he knew whait the paper contained. “Knowingly," he took it. implied knowledge that the paper contained matter that was obscene. The accused, he submitted, need not be put upon his defence, as nothing had been proved against him except that he collected subscriptions to the paper. ms Hobor provisionally ruled against counsel. ■ THE ACCUSED’S VERSION. Mr Wilford thereupon called the accused, who described himse"Sr as manager of tho “New Zealand Truth.” He was at first appointed temporarily, in September last, and the appointment was confirmed in a letter ho received on Wednesday last. The letter was signed by Norton's attorney, and , gave him power to sign cheques in Norton's name. Tho present publisher of "Truth” was George. Mummery, and formerly a Mr Keogh ' had occupied that position. Whan the accused first came to New

Zealand five year* ago he had been publisher. Jl<- collected accounts. He bud !ir>t ]XM*-->iv;iliv anythin'' to do with what app'ur*-'! in the paper. Nothing submitr.<-1 to him before publication, and he had ji.o right of veto over aavtlung i’ w.:s proposed should appear. .He had not lead the arlldo complained of in. the pi'c.-cui ca»e, either before it was published or often*. He had purposely icfrained from reacting it lately so as to !be able to sav that lie had not read it. The -.-. ending out oi the paper to the agents and sellers was entirely eontrolled by the publisher. Tho accused himself had nothing'whatever to do with the supple of the paper. lit answer to Mr Myers, the accused said that tho present editor of the •paper was A. J. Rees. On. November ISth. tho editor was S. A. ,Rosa. The Latter was now in. Australia. Keogh ‘had boon discharged by the accused under instructions from Norton’s general manager, Born.stein, who was in New Zealand at tho time. The accused had power to suspend employees of Norton in Now Zealand, lie having sole control so far as tho business side of tho paper ! was can corned. Tito publisher hud not the power to say that the paper shall not go out on any occasion, Mr Myers: Has anyone tho power to sav that?—The editor.

, lias he a power of attorney from Norfton?—No! i Have you?—No. ■ Has anyone in New Zealand? —No. Bernstein has power of attorney for Aus'tralasia.

■ Could your editor oomo up and stop any paper from going out after it is printed, without giving any reason?— Yes.

Under what authority?—Under authority that ho holds from Mr Norton. Havo you seen it: —No. Well,' than, you mean under authority (you believe he holds?-—Yes. Under further cross-examination, the ‘accused said that when ho wont to the ichief detective ho had expected that there would bo summary prosecution. |"I expected nothing like tins," ho admitted. Mr Myers then placed the article bejfore the accused and asked him if -ho thought it obscene. "You are expected Inow," his Honor interjected, "to give your opinion as an ordinary witness, • without bias." The accused then read portion® of the article pointed out by 'Mr Myers, who asked: Do you say that that is literature which l could ini any but an ’obscene paper: —X couldn’t justify it. Is that article obscene ?—lt tends that pray. Should it appear an any paper for (general distribution ?—No. If you had eeen it oq November 13th, 'would you have stopped tho paper?—l hadn't the power. Would you have resigned your position ? —No. From now on, if anything .like that appears, I shall cable to Mr Norton. Ah! That'S next timo. But couldiyou have done nothing on November Il3th?— No: tho editor had the power.

Yon (know that "Truth" lias been 'prosecuted several times of late for publish iug indecent matter?—Yes. Have you not taken steps to have the .paper tutu differently?—Yes. What steps havo you taken?—That's a (matter between my employer and myself. Answer my question, sir.—l wrote to Hr Norton. Have you a copy the letter?—No: jit was a private letter. Have you Norton's reply?—X don't where it is* Was anything: done?—Mr Norton gave instructions that the paper was to be Iran differently from what it was then. Were those instructions sent to you?— |Ko; they were sent to the editor. In reply to further questions, accused said l that before his time as manager, agents had been - informed that in case oi prosecution, the paper would indemnify them. On November 13th, the paper was distributed all day, .and ho took no eteps to stop it. Had you read it, land found ini it something: grossly indecent, would you have stopped further distribution?—! could ,not have done,, so. •y, - •.. ■ : We say that the law puts that power in your hands. Has the editor anything to do with the distribution of the paper ? .—Absolutely nothing. Why, then, could he stop the distribution of the paper?—He has control of everything that goes into it. Of course. But that has nothing to do with distributing . the paper.—lt is the custom of• newspaper offices throughout Australia for the editor to be able to stop a paper if something gets into It that lie flunks should not be there. The accused admitted that ho had told Chief-Detective Broberg that he wag manager, but denied that he hod said he would take all responsibility. He did not say, "You've got me; you need not prosecute the clerk." He held that he was not responsible for the articles. Who is ?—The manJ who wrote the article. ’ * Who Was he?—Mr Rosa.^ And he is now In Australia ?—Yes. He was editor then, but I'm not sur* whether he actually wrote the article. A SLIGHT MISTAKE. Joseph Gilchrist, ■ counter-clerk ’at "Truth" offioo, said l he did not sell the paper to Detective Bailey. Mr Myers; What has that to do with this charge? His Honor: What is the point of this evidence, Mr Wilford ?, Mr WHrord: Tb show that Detective Bailey is Wrong. His Honor* Only in that 'particular? —Yes. The case for the defence having’ con eluded, Mr Myers 'asked leave to recall Chi ef-Detective Broberg, in rebuttal of certain statements made by the accused with regard to details of 'their conversation. Cobum' ‘Had then said that Bornstein was ta,ot in Wellington bn November ISth, , CONCLUDING ADDRESSES. Mr WHford, in has address, expressed the opinion that the case would present no difficulty. Mr Myers had referred to ; "Truth" as a paper issued for private gain. But the accused was not the person who made the gain. The paper was owned by (Norton, but it was Oobum who was being charged, and it was Cobum who would *pay the penalty if th* jury returned a verdict of guilty. The present case was not one for damages, but was a criminal prosecution, and th* man charged was the only one who would pay any penalty that might be imposed. His Honor, in ‘the course of his (sum-ming-up. said that. it. {was clear that someone in New Zealand must bo re. pousible for the distribution of "Truth," otherwise the office was so ingeniously arranged os to permit of any breach of the law without anyone in the Dominion being accountable —a most improper position, A VERDICT OF "GUILTY." The jury retired a few minutes before 5 o'clock, and were out for an hour and four minutes. On their return, they brought in a verdict of "Guilty," with a strong recommendation to mercy, on account of the short time the accused had been manager, and Of his previous good character. His Honor deferred passing sentence until 10.30 a.m. bn Wednesday, the accused in the meantime being allowed out on the same bail ias formerly.-

Should Sir Wilford desire to appeal on any of -the law points raised by him, he will submit them in writing .when the accused comes up to-morrow.