IMPROPER IMPRINT

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 89, 12 October 1934, Page 10

IMPROPER IMPRINT

POLITICAL BOOKLETS

PRINTERS FINED

The printing and circulation of booklots entitled "MeArthur Strikes Back at Coates and the Kelly Gang" formed the basis of three prosecutions in the Magistrate's Court today. For printing the booklets and omitting to print therein their names and places of abode, Walter Frank Donnelly and Bernard Brummel Gordon Wildermoth were each fined £.10, and for dispensing the booklets in which the name and place of abode of the printers was not shown, Joseph Coyle was fined &5. In addition, Wildermoth was fined &5 for keeping an unregistered printing press. • Regarding Donnelly, Detective-Ser-geant T. Y. Hall said that the defendant had used the printing press of the Art Printing Company and with some assistance he had printed 15,000 copies of the booklet, placing on them the imprint "Progress Print." There was no such establishment in Wellington, but firms of that name existed in Auckland and Dunedin. The seriousness of the offence was that people might believe that the pamphlets were printed by one of these two firms, and in fact one bookseller had actually written to the Dunedin firm for copies.

Mr. S. A. "Wiren entered a plea of guilty and explained that the defendant was a "free lance printer" who employed others to execute the orders he obtained. He did not know that he was taking the name of an Auckland or a Dunedin firm when he used the sign "Progress Print," which was his trade name. Counsel said lie knew that the Magistrate would disregard the fact that there was some political significance in the booklet. The regulation existed in cases of libel, but if such occurred Mr. Coates or Mr. Nicholson would not be worried about Mr. Donnelly, whose best defence was his financial position. Mr. McArthur and Mr. Pilkington had put their names to the pamphlet and they were available if libel proceedings were put in train.

Wildermoth did not appear, and evidence in his case was given by Detective F. N. Robinson. He said that on September 21 Detective H. E. Campin and himself executed a search warrant at the defendant's place in Happy Valley Eoad, Brooklyn. They found 720 of the books, which bore no imprint. The defendant told them that before printing them he had received an indemnity for a fine if he wore prosecuted from a man named Bates, who had instructed him to. do the printing. In a garage adjacent to the house was the printing, press. The defendant said he had a contract with Bates to print 25,000 copies, and he had then printed about 16,000.

Detective-Sergeant T: Y. Hall said that detectives had seized 3275 copies of the pamphlet from Coyle's place when they interviewed him on September 21. He told the detectives that he was employed to arrange for the printing and distributing of the booklets throughout New Zealand. Ho had supplied the majority of bookshops with the booklets, and he led the detectives to believe that his employer had promised to make good to him any penalty he would incur if he were charged. The booklets he was distributing were the ones showing the imprint "Progress Print."

For the defendant Mr. F. W. Ongley said that two firms of printers had been hired to print the booklets and arrangements had been made with Coyle, who was a relief worker, to collect them.