Truth "TRUTH'S" TROUBLES.

NZ Truth, Issue 98, 4 May 1907, Page 4

Truth

"TRUTH'S" TROUBLES.

PUBLiSHHD V.vji'tiY SATUEDAT M6RNING AT LUIO3-,. ■' -v-vV-. 'OVP MANNEBS•'STREET),'\VKV>.»■'*>■'■■■ •■•->.?. K.Z. - SUBSCRIPTION (IN A.Dv....-i3), 138, ' l'Ell ANNUM. ...

SATURDAY, MAY 4 ; , 1907

THE MANAGER BEFORE THE COURT,

The publication m the columns of "Truth" of January 26, a few unwholesome yet true facts obncemi'ng the Fijiaus who were on shbw.attho Ohristohurch Exhibition was the subject of a prosecution at the: S.M s Court yesterday (Friday) when John Thomas McKininon, manager oi "Truth" appeared before Dr McArthur S.M. charged Wildijhaviiig sold to Marion Thompson sundry copies of the paper .Mii.oh m part contained an article Entitled "Liked 'em Stinking'! and which was held to he of an immoral, obscene and offensive nature. Mr M. Myers , prosecuted for, the Crown, afcd Mr Wilford and Mr Dunn appeared for the defehdent, who pleaded not guilty and elected to be soiWmarily dealt with.' '. . ■■■;■• Mr Myers m opening , the case .remarked that the onlf point that would arise would <be whether the; article came within the statute, oi the Act of 1892, thoiigh he under-, stood an affimative defence under the Act of 1905 Would be raised and i'h, so doinp -the onus rested upon the defendant,. The position of the prosecution might have been.- rendered more difficult but for the attitude of the defendant m ' ADMITTING- THE PUBLICATION ; otherwise the prosecution might have been directed against the person from whom the police had actually obtained' the papery MoKinnon had taken upon himself fane onus of the matter, and the formalities had been admitted, W'iu. that he was manager of "Truth" and jthat the paper was, sold- ■ Mr. Wilfoxd : We admit that he is manager and thai; he soid it. Mr Myers said the prosecution was under Section 3 of the Offensive IP/ufo'lication Act of 1892, he tendered a copy of the paper. ' This Was the Crown base. Mr Wilford said lie proposed with the Magistrate's consent to defer (his remarks on the Law and on the question of the article until he had called ohe witness- It was necessary for a legal defence to call that evidence. McKinnon would admit that he was manager of "T';ruth" that he sold the paper, the subject of the prosecution. He wanted to show furthpr on his oath that from January 21 to January 2l> be was absent from Wellington. ! The defendant m the box said he left Wellington on January 21 of this year for Ohristchurch, and returned to Wellington on January 29: He did not see the article complained of until it was issued m the paper, nor did he have any opportunity of knowing the contents of the paper. From the witness, Mr Myers obtained tine information that the article was sent fi'om Christchurch, the; same night thai; he left Wellington, He heard of the subject matter . m the article m Ohristohnroh, though he did not hear of it from "Truth's" Ohristehuroh reporter, as /he did not see Mm. As manager, he was responsible for the newspaper, and- again ho adittvitted having sold the liafver. ' ' Mr Wilford then addressed the cour-t a-M said he proposed to refer to tlie legal aspect of the ; case. He asked the Ma'gdstLate to consider carefully sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1^92, and he further desired him to read the decision m Efwart's case of 19' OS especially the remarks ofMr. Justice After that he desired him to rß'ad section 2 of the/ Ofionsive PuhJioatiOtis Act of 1905, a/ law which was "passed to put into concrete form, Mr Justice Edward's law on the subject. In reference to the Act of 1892 the offence was complete m the selling of a newspaper which ctiJi'tained obscene and indecent; matter and until the Act of l»O5 | there was no defence given by statju'to to any vendor of newspapers ! which mi?,ht be deemed widecent or obisoene, but part of the statute of 190-3 cstahlishod a defence for any man chai"ged with an . offence of the nature before the court and tMt special defence was set out m sectfbn j 2. In the Orin.inal Code m casc^6f ; A GfUMTNAL NATUR'k ; such as rap© there was a gpecial/de-/ . toaqo which provklod that a perpon

so charged could establish to a jury that lie had reasonable belief that the -girl was over 16 years of age. That was a special defence, even though there was wrong-doing. The defendant, instead of exercising the right of taking Ms case before the Supreme Court, and he (Mr Wilford) thought he was ripht m saying that no jury had had a -similar case before them since the Act of 1905 had come into operation, had decided to place the matter m the Magistrate's hands for determinatcn and elected to be tried sum--warily. In do ins so he asked the Magistrate to givej a decision sitting as a jury, and he did notknow whether this special defence had been taken m any other case. Mr Myers : It was^raised m another case against "Truth." Mr Wilford : I was not m that case. The Statute, Mr Wilford continued was : "In any proceedings against any person under the Offensive Publications Act of 1892 or the Criminal Code Act 1893 or m any other Statute relating to the publication or sale of indecent or immoral or obscene matter it shall- not be a defence that he did not know that the picture or printed matter complained of was of an indecent, im- . moral of obscene nature unless he > satisfies the Court hot only that he did not m fact know it Wthad no resonable opportunity of knowing it and therefore m the circumstances of the case his ignorance was excusable.'' •Mr Wilford asked the Magistrate to say whether, m the face of the uncontradicted oath of McKihnon, viz.. tint he did not know that the article was published, and that ! by itself Was not an excuse, but also that he had no opportunity of knowing and. therefore, m the circumstances of the case that . HIS IG-NORANCJE WAS £X(kjS- ' ABLE, l;e could foe held responsible. In dealing with that phase of the' question and the only other admitted issue before the Court was that the paper .Was f o'd l,y the defendant, who was manager of "Truth," t-he defence raised was t»c enly one possible m law, apart; of course, from the distinction whether, the article was indecent or ob-, scene, and that the Court was to be satisfied not only that he did not know itto 'be so, but that lie did not have a' reasonable opportunity of knowing it. He asked the Magistrate, by virtue. of the fact that there was no contradiction of McKinnon's evidence that he left Wellington, on January 21 and did not return from Christchurch till January 29, and did not see the publication till it was sold, to dismiss the information. It seemed to him that tbik was a case that the Legislature had ih its mind when the Act was framed. . After dealing with the discretion^ ary power vested m the Magistrate Mr Wiilfbrd contended that the words "any reasonable opportunity of knowing" meant that a defendant must have' been m a position 'to have been able to know the nature of the matter published. McKinnon's nncontradieted statement' on oath showed that he could not ha,ve. possibly known that it was written or printed, and ~ in Vre face of that; h6w could tHe Court hold -('hat he had a reasonable opportunity of ! KNOWING THE ARTICLE WAS ! PUBLISHED m the paper. Mr Wilford next dealt with the article itseif; He said it was a difficult thing where there were no definitions under the Statute of Obscenity and indecency to know where "th 3 line of demarcation should be drawn between words. Dr. McArtbur :It is virtually impossible. . Mr Wilford : It is impossible. If Webster's dictionary, or any other dictionary, was searched the words would be defined m mapy ways. Some words would hardly be regarded as obscene at all. If quotations were taken from standard authors they would find themselves just as fair apart as if they dealt with current literature of the day, or current advertisements of the day. The judgment ©f the Court would, therefore, have -to rely on the view taken by the Magistrate m his interpretation of words. It was quite possible for a man of hypersensitive, or ultra-Puritanical views to define what was obscenity or indecency, and those views would not find favor m the mind of the ordinary, man. Again reminding the Magistrate that no help could be obtained from she perusal of standard, or any other authorities m the definition 5 OF OBSCENITY AND INDECENCY Mr Wilford . remarkedN that it had been a great matter of wonder to the defendant as to who instituted this "inddgation," a word, counsel explained,' taken from the Latin "indigat'io," and meaning investigation. Dr McArthui; : Well we have to live afc'i yet learn. : > Mr Wilford : There is one thing of great concern to McKinnon, and this is the reason of the investigation into this particular article. ' Counsel went an to say that he was. entitled to criticise 1 the whole and not, part of the article and see whether it came within the category of Mr Myer's 'contention' that it came within the meaning of the Act of 1892 It was headed, he said, "Liked 'Em Stinking." He supposed it would be admitted by anybody who visited the Exhibition that both the Fijian compound, and the men themselves, were stinking. He did not suppose that the word stink was obscene or indecent. If it was, hardly a man who travelled between Kaiwarra and NauIvaranga had not been guilty of USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE. and tho word stinking. There could be no question that the Fijians smelt, ; snd the paper or anybody else dould hardly be deemed to be obscene- for using the expression that they were stinking. - A Public Health Officer had recently told him (Mr Wilfdrd) that a lot of sausages and hams were; found piled up m aw.c. % and; that the w.c. was used and the haifts and' sausages were used m a shop and he, therefore, thought the hams 'an :ly sausages were kept m a stinking place. /The ne?:t line was "Woman's Cra'e for Black Stuff." What the i meaning of those words? If we had !itt lot, of Fijians m this Colony, or ■Chinese, as m fact we had m this country, rlebaurohiing or ru-ming, or desiitfna; to -jebaunch or ruin young Eirls m every way described could

that not be called a craze, for yhlack sfcufl'. Every . man who went to Ohristchurch heard somo statement that the Fijians had misbehaved tlvainselves. Anybody who read books of the present day knew that such a craze did exist m minds diseased, and even .where the people were brought up well or educated they did fall so low as to prefer riigers, Chinamen, and men of that kind m ma.kin.fi or marriage. These were facts, everybody knew it, and "TRUTH" DARED TO SAY IT. At this stage the Magistrate expressed a d.siic to hear Mr, Myers on the ■ leaarcyucstion raised. Briefly, Mr. Myers contended that the defendant, having talen the responsibility of the sris on his shoulders, he could not sffulter himself behind the hedge of ijjncrance of the publication. Further, a threat was made, that !if Mr Wil ford's point was upheld proceedings would fee directed asainst Mrs. Thompson, or persons m "Truth" office who had delivered the papers to her. V Mr. Wilford responded / that the threat of such prosecutions was no j answer to his argument. Continuing his remarks on the article he said iv© * would ask the Magistrate to point out any obscene or indecent words. Reading the article he dealt with the word ravish, which, could not be construed as obscene or indie Cent, and he , did not think it possible "to. -'more carefully veil what was meant. Every man would a<?ree with what was said if a woman knocked about with niggers, and «if she did not behave herself— she did not deserve any consideration-.; m fact, most men would be inclined to say "Hear, Hear", to it. He. wanted to say, moreover, that there; could be no question Of the good this kind of paper had done.' It did a lot. of o-ood. . It exposed and denounced auaclrs arid frauds from the Dpwiie type upwards or. downwards. It was ever on the track of ouacks, particularly 'the religious quacks a/nd cranks, and all tends ofi men who imposed on the ignorance of the credulous and effected to cure cancer and every other ill that it was impossible to (get i'id of. It bad done much m the prevention of crime, and none knew better than those engaged m criminal cases, how people dreaded an exposure of their' wrong-doings m the columns of "Truth." It had no doubt come under Hfs Worship's notice, under the notice oi the people that the paper created , A TERROR AMONO WRONG^ DOERS ■ * ■ especially young girls, 'boys and women. They knew that the perpetration of wrong on their part would fee brought before the public. Swindlm.2; companies, and oth?r snide financial concerns had ever turned 'on them the , search-light of thp paper and numerous undertakings of this kind had /been burst up . Such a .concern was exposed by them but a few weeks ago. What was the reason that this article, was picked out as being indecent ' or obscene. Was /it that the ' individual-, indicated, was seeking an opportunity to get back on the paper that had ; written a)bout h'dro., Statements made to "the paper were always investi.aia ted. The writer of &*y article always made investigation's. There was a case; of criminal libel against '• 'Truth" Sometime agio, and the paper was prepared to prove what had been printed and it was always : prepared .to prove its assertions if the party concerned desired to go into court. Every care was exercised before an article .was. published. This was a Case peculiarly for the Magistrate to decide updo; On the public platform and m other discussions w>here the dark phrase of life were considered, stronger words— what would toe called -plain/talk would be used. He could honestly say that it would require" a good stretch of the imagination to ' say that the words employed/ iin the article were obscene or indecent,. He asked Dr McArthur to remember that he was sittflno; as a jury as well as a judge and ihat he would not hesitate to say that on the question of law the informatiian should he dismissed and that the wording qf the 'article did not come' within the limits of the act of 1892. : ' MR MYERS REPLIES. Mr Myers said that the article was one entirely for the consideration of the tribunal whether it was composed of a Magistrate or a ."jury. The article had to (be taken m the whole. The headtaigs had to 'be taken m conjunotJon W>ith 'the 'matter. If the heading, "Woman's craze for black stuff" was not obscene* or indecent j he could not . suggest i what 'was. His ! Worship had to remember that this was not a scientific worlc but that it was a newspaper and published and sold on the streets and m bookseller^s shop and iwas purchased amd reaid <by persons of tooth sexefs, amd of all ages. That vtws a matteiwh'ich ougibt to be. taken, i^nto consideration m d«ciidiin'g .wliether the article came within the section. He further submitted that the test 'to be applied was whbther the article was what an ordinary man of the world or any ordinary indi/iddal would consider as 'beiaig within the oanotos of ordinary decency and reasOrtablA go6d taste. '■ . i ■' Dr McArtJiiur S.M. reserved his decision till inext Mol.iday.