SHOW ADVERTISEMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9783, 5 October 1917, Page 3

SHOW ADVERTISEMENT

THE “ INTOLERANCE ” CASE MAGISTRATE DEFINES INDECENT PUBLICATION. EeseitveA judgment was given yesterday morning in what is known aa the ‘ Intolerance Picture" advertisement case. This tob an action brought by the Crown against Duncan Nexen (as touring manager for J. C. Williamson, Ltd.). It was alleged in the information that the defendant caused to be inserted in the "Evening Post" of July Ittl/ last an ndyertisEnneoit of the kinematograph picture "intolerance" whereby tbe newspaper became an indecent document. In his judgment the magistrate (Mr, S 13, McCarthy, S.M.) stated that the 61m -purposed .to represent society in ancient and modern times, and passes quickly from one epoch to naother. The picture had been the subject of severe criticism on the ground of immoral tendemodes. It had been also commended as a bold attempt to educate the masses on civil rights and sex relationship. The magistrate quoted the advertisement referred to in the information and the contention of the prosecution ; that it was 'an indecent publication within the meaning of the Act, because; the ( advertisement was a public notice of an intention to present a film * which, in another oity, had been publicly denounced as obscene, coupled with an invitation to "all Wellington," on paying the advertised orices, to 'be present. The contention for the defence was that the film “Intolerance" was not' indecent, and that the advertisement was merely an invitation to the public to. come and judge .for themselves. i ; . After explaining the meaning of the Words "indecent document’*; as defined by the Act, Mr McCarthy said that section 5 of the Act provided that a magistrate in determining whether 1 a document was indecent had to take into con. sideration not merely, the nature pf. the. document but also the nature and cirnuimstanoes of the act done by the defendant; the purpose with which the act was done, and the literary, scientific' or artistic, merit or importance of the document. No document was to be held tft be indecent unless having regard ,to the. foregoing, and all other relevant considerations, the magistrate,’ is of the opinion that the not was os an immoral or mischievous tendency- w Continuing) the magistrate said: "The place whore the film, was !exhibited was nightly crowded by persons of all ages and both sexes till a late hour. No ; evidence wias tendered, ,as to; the nature or the film or its moral or artistic merits or demerits. The contention for the prosecution waa immaterial if the advertisement complained pf was held to be an invitation” to inspect a film ne-* nounoed as immoral. At was con ( these grounds contended by counsel for the prosecution, that the advertisement, had an immoral and • miscitievous,, tendency. and that the newspaperr in which , was inserted by its vetry -insertion became on indecent document within the meaning pf the Act. Now the circumstances iQ the advertisement were neither of (them veiled. The film was broadly denounced eis immoral and obscene. Anyone of common sense, especially anyone connected with the theatrical world, as the defendant in this case is, must have known, that the insertion of such an advertisement would attract patrons anxious to ■ whet i ac *to appetites by gating, on a film of doubtful reputation, The film advertised may have been as pure as the driven snow. That, however, will mot detract from the vicious tendency of the advertisement. The advertisement now under review was in my opinion inserted to create the impression in the (public mand the film ‘lntolerance* was blatantly obscene in the hope of swldling the number of Visitors to the show. That being eo the oonolueion follows that the advertise merit complained of,has an unmoral and mischievous tendency, and the newspaper in which it was inserted became thenv fore an indecent document within the meaning of the Indecent Publications “ The defendant will be convicted and fined X 5. and ordered to ; pay the costs of court Vs and solicitors fee £- A. Gray. K.C., who appeared for the defendant applied to have the fine increased to AS to-. The application una wanted. the security for appeal hem ß .fixed at £7 7s. Mr P- S. Macassey appeared for tbe Crown at the hearing.