THE WROITES.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 73, 17 July 1863, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE WROITES.

At the District Police Court, Melbourne, lately, before bis Worship the Mayor, the Hob. William Hull, Dr Greeves, and Dr Campbell, Messrs. Abbott and Co., printers, were summoned to appear to answer an information , lodged against them, charging them with having had in their possession certain obscene papers and writings for the purpose of sale or distribution, and the said papers and writing have been sold and distributed in the City of Melbourne. Lorimer Fison appeared to answer the charge, and stated that Mr Robert Mayne Abbott constituted the firm of Abbott and Co.,' and was then absent in England, but that he possessed a power of attorney to act on his behalf. He then stated that he was prepared to answer the information preferred against him. Francis Hare was then called, and sworn : He stated — I am an inspector of police, stationed in Melbourne. On Friday afternoon, about four o'clock, the defendant came to me and brought me a pamphlet, headeof " The Abominations of the Wroites or Christian Israelites, Fully and Completely Exposed." He asked me whether I thought there was anything wrong in publishing them. I told him I would not give him an answer, but 1 would see the magistrate upon the subject. I told him in the meantime he had better not circulate any of them. He replied that most of the respectable booksellers had already got them. On the following afternoon, Saturday, I laid an information, and obtained a search warrant to visit the premises of the defendant. I took possession of those offered for sale by the boys and men, and went to the premises of Messrs Abbott and Co. I heard the men say in the presence of the defendant that they had bought the books from him, and I saw defendant return money to one of the men whose books I had seized. I also heard a dispute between the defendant and another man as to the amount of money that should be returned to him, but I did not see the matter settled. I went to the premises and seized all the pamphlets. I found them similar to the one I now produce in court and marked A. There were several hundreds of them, and the one marked A was amongst those seized. By the defendant : The reasons why I laid an information are founded on the matter contained in the 6th and 7th pages. You told me when I first came to you, that if I thought the two passages alluded to were indecent, you would suppress the publication. 1 heard you blame the men for letting the boys have them. By th& Bench : Were the pamphlets in the hands of booksellers or vendors before this statement was made. inspector Hare : Xes, your worships. The defendant then signified his intention of pleading guilty, but offered the following explanation : — He had unwittingly been placed in the present dilemma, not knowing the responsibility a printer incurred, and in support of his assertion would show he had used every fair precaution to avoid a breach of the law, and'would call Joseph Alfred Hildreth, who, on being sworn, stated— He had been sent to inquire from the magistrates as to how far the publication would be jurtifiable. He was an employee in Messrs Abbott and Cob establishment. He had not seen any magistrate upon the subject, but a Mr Hardy, whom he believed to be a clerk in the court, and was informed there was nothing wrong about it. Robert Bell, another employee, stated — The conversation he had had with Mr Fison was, not to act rashly, but to take the advice of a solicitor. Another witness was called, who stated — A gentleman had called at the office on the evening of publication and stated that he had had an interview with the Mayor, who had said there was no harm in the matter, and they might fire away and strike off as many as was thought fit. The Mayor here observed that he should like to call Mr Fitzgibbon, the Town Clerk. A message was accordingly sent, but the Town Clerk was noi to be found. The defendant then entered into an elaborate defence, and contended that he was induced to incur the risk by the affirmation of Dr Milton, and further stated that he had no intention whatever of breaking the law. He then went on to observe that there were isolated passages of Holy Writ which would call forth the same condemnation, that the works of classical authors such as Herodotus and Xenophon were equally objectionable, and that Shakspeare itself should be forbidden if objection were simply taken against tbe two pages in question. A vast amount of argument, he urged, could be used in justification, but if he deserved punishment he would abide by it. He then handed to the Bench a copy of Todd's Students' Manual with a marked passage, which he urged was far worse than anything contained in the pamphlet. The quotation was one in Latin, to which a note was appended, apologising for its insertion. The Bench ruled the pamphlet was of a most beastly character, and as they could not adjudicate upon the accusation, they should send it to a higher tribunal. The defendant was accordingly committed to trial, but admitted to bail in his own recognisances for £50. — Melbourne Paper.