FOURTEEN DAYS' IMPRISONMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 46, 24 October 1913, Page 5

FOURTEEN DAYS ' IMPRISONMENT.

A YOUNG MAN'S MAD FOLLY. p.efore Mr W. (i. K. Kenrick, S.M., at the Court this morning, Edward Douglas Evans was brought forward on three charges of sending indecent literature through the Post Office,the charges being in respect of two postcards posted on August 2nd and a photograph posted on August 11th. Mi' T. C. Fookes appeared for accused and Sergeant McNeely conducted proceedings for the police. Accused pleaded guilty. Mr T. C. Fookes drew attention to the fact that the Act under which proceedings were taken was chiefly designed to combat the general dis semination of indecent literature through the Post Office, while in tin present case tin offending a'rticles were not widely "published." Ml Fookes said he did not desire to bring personalities into the case, but it arose from the fact that accused had had his engagement with a young lady broken off just when all preparations were made for his marriage. Accused had brooded over the matter until he was almost beside himself. Previously he had borne an excellent character.

The S.M. said it was hard to say what could be done in the case. Accused had borne a good character, but what ho had written was of a cruel description. It was suggested that he had acted on impulse, but what was-, written on the photograph must liavt taken some time to write. It was designed to expose the wornae to tin worst insult which could be offered to a woman. Such statements could easily bo made, but were hard to disprove. He (the S.M.) could hardly understand a man doing as accused had. Everything had been worked out with some care. The language on the postcards also made serious statements. Even if the young lady was proved to be at fault in regard to breaking off the engagement, accused's action would not be justified. The articles had been made public tc the extent of going through the Post Office, and the degree of publication was not great so long as the PoSi Office servants did not disclose what passed through their hands. Ho had been asked to consider accused's pre vious good character, but he had also to consider the woman's character. The woman had not taken away accused's character—he had 1 clone so by his own act. However much his feelings may have been worked on by the occurrence he had no justification for vilifying her character as he had done. The articles were addressed to the young lady's place of business. Sergeant McNeely explained that the two postcards had been delivered at the place of business. The photograph was held up by the postmaster.

The S.M. said that if the postcards had come under the notice of the postmaster he would, no doubt, have stopped them also. The language on the postcards was shocking and disgraceful, and the matter was put together in a manner to suggest that all the statements were true. Fot the offence accused was liable to three months' imprisonment or a fine of £IOO. He {the S.M.) would have to take time to think what should be done with accused. He was certain what accused deserved—imprisonment. No apology would bo sufficient to atone for what had been done.

The Court was then adjourned till 11.45.

On resuming, the S.M. said lie had gone carefully through the articles, and the words used suggested that accused moral character was not 1 very good. On one of the postcards there was an endorsement, ''more to come," which showed that the writing was deliberate. It was not only the young lady who had to be protected in such a case. The public had to be protected, and unless offenders were properly punished the offence might become common. The nature of the present writing was so bad that future offenders could hardly do worse. There was every evidence that the writing bad been done deliberately, ruder the circumstances he (the S.M.) could not see his way merely to fine accused—it would not be sufficient to protect the public. Accused bad previously been of good character, and that would be considered in inflicting the punishment. Accused would be sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment without hard labor. He had not been in prison before, and the imprisonment imposed would he quite as good a lesson as a longer term. If it had not been for his previous good character the sentence would have been stiffer.