THIS SEIZURE OF A PRINTING PLANT AT BALLARAT.

Timaru Herald, Volume LII, Issue 5038, 8 January 1891, Page 3

THIS SEIZURE OF A PRINTING PLANT AT BALLARAT.

At Iho city polico court, Balhirat, on Docomber 16th, Mr Abrahura Alexander Herberte, printer and publisher of a local society paper known as Sport, was charged, on the information of Mr W. P. Bcchervtune post and telegraph master m Ballarat West, with having m his possession a printing press which had not been registered. On the 3rd December the police, acting on a warraut issued by Mr Thompson, V.M., at the instigation of Mr Bucliervnioe, proceeded to the office of Sport and anized the plant and types. Tim action Was taken, it seems, on account of the insertion of a paragraph m Sport which cau-rd Mr Bechorvaiso mueli annoyance, and which, ns h» considered held him up to ridiuulo m his private and public capacity. Mr ttugeno Barry.doputy registrar-general, deposed that the Sport . nowapapor had been registered, but not the plant and tjpo» He did not think that, prior to the seizure of tho michinery and types m the office of Sport, any of tho newspaper plauls of Ballarat were registered. ■ Mr Burrclt, for the defence, raised a number of technical objectioog. In tho flrst instance he contended that the bench 'had no jurisdic'ion, us the informor was not cuing fora penalty, and secondly, he urged that according to tho remarks of oounaol for the prosecution proceedings wore taken under eeoti >n 21 of tho not, which Bxod tho ponulty at £10- .S'oizuro was therefore illog'il. Thon, again, tho act, although bearing data, 1890, whs virtually foundod on Knglißh acts Dnssert m 1799 and 1820, and which have since been orpunged from the English statutes, although m force m this colony. The proceedings were an outrage on the intentions of tho Legislature, and on outrago on newspauers generally. The present occasion was tbe first, m the history of tho Aurtralnsiari colonies that a proprietor of a newspaper had boon dragged to tho bar of a nourfc for not having Ilia press registorod. Mr Horberlo had, like other nowsp.iper proprietors, registered his pupcr, nnd he (Mr Barrolt) contended that wua sufficient to meet tho requirements of the law. Mr Pear-sen urged Oiat tho law on tho subject was plnin. Tho act wa9 pnesed on the 10th July, 1890, and it clearly stipulated thnt all newopopcrn and all presses should be registered. A majority of tho bench deoidod to dismiss tho case, as they wore of opinion that m registering Spurt. Mr Herberte had oomplied ivit.b tho Act, and therefore the special registration of the pkot wag unnecessary. The ohnirman of tho bench, Mr R M. Sergeant, added that he did not a^ree with the decision of his colloagucg. Costs amounting to £1 Is were allowed defendant. . '■■■'■ .. A second charge of having unregistered types m his pocsesiion wa» preferred ugaiost Mr Herberto. Thin oaso wob also dismissed with JEI Is costs to defendant. Kxoeulion was atnyad for Bix weeks, m order that complainant might appeal.