INDECENT LITERATURE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3022, 8 March 1917, Page 9

INDECENT LITERATURE

MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT

BOOKSELLER FINED £10

An important reserved judgment dealing with the question of what constitutes an indecent publication was delivered by Sir. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., tti the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The case was that in which David Armstrong was charged with selling indecent documents, namely, certain books. Tho salo of the books, which was not denied, was mado in 1916, on tho railway train between .Wellington and Palmerston North.

At tho hearing, on Janaury 19, Inspector Hendroy prosecuted, and Mr. D. M. Findlay. defended. His Worship, in his judgment, said that in tho case of each information the document sold was an English translation, of a novel by a standard French author. The one book was called "Stolen Sweets," and was by Paul de Kock, and tho other was "A Spa Lovo Affair," by Guy do Maupassant. A copy of each book was sold to a constable- by the defendant, who did not know that the purchaser was a constable. There could be no doubt that, on the day of tho sale, anyone, however immature or undisciplined, paying the purchase price, a trifling sum, could have secured on the railway a copy of either book, so long as the supply lasted. There were several passages in both works which, by reason or an excess of sexual detail, could reasonably be termed obscene, according to present-day English literary standards. If such books were sold indiscriminately, and scattered broadcast among all sorts and conditions-of people, thora could be no doubt there would be a deterioration of public morals. Literary hogs would bo able to wallow knee-deep in sexual filth. This would tend to generate libidinous desires, and those desires, not infrequently, proved for their unhappy victims that broad highway which led to the mental hospital, the gaol, and the premature grave. It was interesting to note that Guy de Maupassant attempted suicide, and eventually died under painful circumstances. It must not, however, be overlooked that not every obscene publication was, under all circumstances, an indecent document within tho meaning of the Aot The questions for consideration were: —(a) Were the publications, the subject of the informations, or either of them, obsccno in themselves? (b) Were or cither of them, indecent within the moaning of the Act? With regard, to the first question, tho. test of obscenity per so wae laid down by Chief Justice Cockburn when.he said': "The test of obscenity is whether tho tendency of tho matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whoso minds aro open to immoral influences, and iuto whose hands the publication may fall." Judged by this test, both publications under review wero obscene. "Obscene" and "indecent" would seem for some purposes to bo convertible terms.

With regard to ilio second point, His Worship quoted tho following: "In ~ *h<Ml o Ages things wcro discussed which, if put forward now for tho reading of tho general publie, would never bo tolerated. In towns buried from the corrupt times of tho Roman Empire, now disinterred or in tho course ,of being disinterred, there aro discovered pictnroa of tlio most lewd and filthy character. Nobody would think of destroying these pictures, but to soil photographs of them in tho streets (if m j- n V ov fi bo nn intlict aMo offence. ,, Ino distinction thoro set up was merely tho old maxim: "Strong meat is not good for baben." ; The subject might be further illustrated by recalling tho saying that dirt was only matter' in the wrong place. To tlio student or literary connoisseur the books under review might be instructive, even inspiring. It must not, howover, lo overlooked that the mass of persons who read them did so, not for their literary charm, not for tho lessons they professed to enforce, but for tlio filtii thoy contained. It was this class of persons that the legislation was intended, to proteot. His AVorship had no hesitation in finding that thoso obscone books, kept as they wero by tho defendant for indiscriminate sale, wore indecent documents within tho meaning of tho Act. Defondanfc would bo convicted on one information, and fined £10, with costs 7s. • In tho case of the other information, ho would be convicted and ■ discharged.