ALLEGED BLASPHEMY.

Wairarapa Age, 9 December 1921, Page 2

ALLEGED BLASPHEMY.

"MAOHILaXD WORKER” PUBLICATION. .JOHN GLOVER COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. John - er, printer and publisher of the “Mnoriland Worker,” was charged in the Magistrate’s Court at Welling ti before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., with publishing in his paper, dated October li, the following words, which were alleged to be a blasphemous libel: “Oh, Jesus, send me a wound to-day, and I'll believe in your bread and wine, and get my bloody old sins washed white.” Mr P. S. K. Macassey, for the Crown, said that the proceedings were taker, under section 150 of the Crimes Act. It was laid down in this section that “everyone is liable to one year’s imprisonment who publishes a blasphemous libel. Whether any particular published matter is or is not blasphemous libel is a question of fact, It is not an offence under this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to est ' ; by arguments used in good t' : >ita and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever upon any religious subject. No one shall be indicted under this section except the leave in writing of the AttorneyGeneral is first had and obtained.” Counsel explained that the words, the subject of the information, were published in a poem, “Stand To, Good Friday Morn.” The definition of blasphemous libel was set out in Stephen’ s Digest of the Criminal Law. and w; < iollows: “Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or the Book of Common Prayer, intending to wound the feelings of mankind, or to excite contempt and hatred against the Church by law established, or to promote immorality. Any contemptuous reviling or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England, as by law established whatever

may be the occasion of the publication thereof, and whether the matter published is or is not intended in good faith, as an argument against any doctrine, or. opinion, unless the publication Ls made under circumstances constituting excuse.” Mr O’Regan asked whether the prosecution was authorised by the Attor-ney-General as required bv section WO. Mr Maeassey said the authority was endorsed on the document. ’' r O’Regan said that the case was too trivial to send to the Supreme Court. Whether blasphemy had been committed or not was a question of fact, but it was competent for the Magistrate to decide that no offence was disclosed is the published words. f lhe passage was contained in a poem written by Siegfried Sassoon, a member of a family of bankers at Bombay, who he believed were Jews. Sassoon served in the Great War and earned some distinction, and the poem published in the “Maoriland \\ orker was taken from a volume of poetry describing the writer’s feelings on the battlefield. The book was on sale in the Dominion, and reviews complimentary to the volume had been published in “The Times” and in the local daily papers. The offending lines v» ere an illustration of the usual poetic license. To say that the words

were not offensive might be putting r too lightly, but he maintained then was nothing blasphemous in the pub hcation of the poem. It was quite competent for the Court to dismiss the information. The information looked Hire organised political persecution Mr Macassey: Nothing of the kind. Mr Riddell intimated that he proposed to commit the accused for trial Glover pleaded not guilty, and was committed. Bail was allowed in one surety of £lOO, or two of £5O each.