INDECENT LITERATURE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1683, 8 March 1917, Page 3

INDECENT LITERATURE.

EFFECT OX THE PUBLIC MIND

INTERESTTNG JUDGMENT

An important judgment dealing with the question as to what constitutes indecent literature was delivered in the Wellington Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr S. E. Al'Carlhy, S.M. The case, which was heard some considerable time ago, was (hat in which David Armstrong was charged on two informations with selling indecent documents on a railway train. The documents in question were novels entitled “A Spa Love Affair” and “Stolen Sweets.”

The Magistrate said that in 1 lie ease of each information the document allege*! to have been sold was an English translation of a novel hy a standard French author. . The one hook was called “Stolen Sweets," and was hy Faul de Kock, and the other was “A Spa, Love Affair,” hy (lay de .Maupassant. A' copy of each hook was sold to a cor,stable. There could he no doubt that, on the day of the sale, anyone, however, immature or undisciplined, paying the purchase price, a trilling sum, could have secured on the railways a copy of either hook' so long as the supply lasted. There were several passages in both works, which, hy reason of an excess of sexual detail, could reasonably he termed obscene according to present day English literary standards. If such hooks were sold indiscriminately, and scattered broadcast among all sorts and conditions of people, there could he no donhl there would he a deterioration of public morals. SEXFAL FILTH. Literary hogs would he able to wallow knee-deep in sexual tilth. This would tend to generate libidinous desires, and rho-e desires, no! infrequently, paved for then - unhappy victims that broad highway which led to the mental hospitals, tie the premature grave. It was interesting to note Unit Lny de Maupassant attempted stiieide. and eventually died under painful circumstances. It must not, however, he overlooked t hat not every oh-cene publication was under all circumstances an indecent doeumeni within the meaning of the Am. THE QUESTION AT ISSI'E. The questions for consideration were: —(a) Were the pithliealion.-., the subject of the informations, or either of them, ohseeue in themselves: (h) were they, or either of them, indecent within the meaning of the Act With regard to the first question the test of obscenity pei' se was laid down by Chief .Justice Coehhurn when he said: “The jest of obscenity is whether the tendency of (he mattm' charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to unmoral inllnenees and into whose hands the publication may fall.” •bulged hy ibis test, both publications under icview were obscene, “IN TIIL MIDDLE ACES.” With regard to Ihe second point, ids Worship quoted ihc following: “In the Middle Ages, things were discussed which, if pul forward now for the reading of the general public, would never he tolerated. In towns buried from the corrupt times of the Roman Empire, now (I*)()0) disinterred or in the course of being disinterred, there are discovered pictures of the most lewd and lilthy character. Nobody would think of destroying these pielures, hut lo sell photographs of (hem in Iheslreel- of London would he an indictable offence.” The distinction there set up was merely the old maxim, “Strong meal is not good for babes.” The subject might be further illustrated hy recalling the saying that dirt was only matter in the wrong place. To the student or literary connoisseur the books under review might be instructive, even inspiring.

TIIII PERSONS TO PROTECT, !i must not, however, lie overlooked that the mass of persons who read them did so. not tor their literary charm, not tor the lessons thev professed to entoree, lull for the tilth they contained. It was ibis class of person that the legislation was intended to protect. His Worship had no hesitation in finding that those obscene books, kept as | hey were by the defendant for indiscriminate sale, were indecent documents within the meaning of the Act. Defendant wonld he eonvieted on one information and fined .€lO. with eosts 7s. In the case of the other information, he would he convicted and discharged.

At the hearing Inspector Hendry appeared for the Police, and Mr D. M. Findlay for the defendant.