ALLEGED OBSCENE PUBLICATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2915, 26 January 1910, Page 9

ALLEGED OBSCENE PUBLICATION.

WELLINGTON, January 19. Henry Stephen Coburn, in the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Dr A. M'Arthur, S.M., was charged with having wilfully and knowingly distributed for public sale, on November 13, 1909, certain obscene printed matter, to wit, the New Zealand Truth, tending to corrupt morals. Along with this prosecution, two booksellers—viz., Kenneth Aitken and Herbert Mowtell, were charged with having sold to one Alex. Bailey, the New Zealand Truth, of which certain parts were of an obscene nature.

Mr Dunn, who appeared for defendants, intimated that it was desired that the cases concerning the booksellers should be dealt with summarily, and the other involving the newspaper should go before a jury. As the three cases arose out of the same subject matter, he urged that the booksellers' cases be adjourned pending the hearing in the Supreme Court of the latter case, which he considered might be prejudiced by the others if they were heard now. As an alternative, counsel requested a shorter adjournment. Mr Myers (Crown Prosecutor) and Chief-detective Broberg opposed the application for an adjournment. Counsel for the defence, it was pointed out, had already been granted an adjournment. The Magistrate held that the hearing of the newisagents' cases be proceeded with. The cases against the two booksellers were taken first. Defendants pleaded " Not guilty." Evidence was given by Detective Bailey to the effect that he had purchased a copy of the New Zealand Truth from each of the defendants. The newspapers were produced. Kenneth Aitken, one of the defendants, admitted selling the paper. He said he was only a shop assistant employed by his brother. The paper v/as sold in the ordinary course of business, and he was ignorant of its contents. ° Chief-detective Broberg : How long have you been selling the Truth ?—Several years. Did you ever examine the paper to see if there was anything objectionable in it?—No. Notwithstanding that there have been similar prosecutions before?—l never looked at it closely. Similar evidence was submitted by defendant Mowtell. It was contended by Mr Dunn that the particular article to which objection was taken was not a matter of fiction, but that it was based on fact, and that it had not been published to excite immorality. Every man's or woman's wrongdoing should be stated in the papers. The Magistrate : What's that ? I cannot accept that. If- that were so where would we all be ? If a person has a fail, it does not mean that it should be made public. There are mistakes made in all stages of life. Counsel said he considered that the article was couched in decent language end was not obscene, and he therefore urged that the two informations should be dismissed. It was submitted by Chief-detective Broberg that defendants had every opportunity of becoming acquainted with the contents of the papers they sold, and that accordingly they had no excuse. Dr M'Arthur intimated that he would look through the paper and would give his decision on Monday. Preliminary evidence was taken regarding the charge against the defendant Coburn. One of the witnesses called. Chiefdetective Broberg, stated that defendant had admitted that he was in charge and had control of Truth in New Zealand. Mr Dunn : By control, do you mean he superintended what went into the paper?;—No, that he was the manager. If it was stated that Mr Bonistein was the general manager, would you be in 't position to contradict?—No; only that defendant himself informed me on December 3 that he had been in charge for the past three months. Mr Myers : Is Mr Bornstein resident in New Zealand ?—No. Mr Dunn submitted that a prima facie case had not been made out. The Magistrate overruled the contention. Defendant was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The defence was reserved. Bail was fixed at accused in £SO, and one surety of £SO.