IS NUDE FORM INDECENT?

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 455, 12 June 1937, Page 6

IS NUDE FORM INDECENT?

QUESTION FOR THE -COURT Charges Against Bookseller Press Association —Copyright. Wellington, June 11. ‘The Auckland domain statue, nudity in art galleries, undressed shop-win-dow models and the March number of an Auckland magazine, Hetilth and Sunshine, were discussed in the Police Court to-day when Morris Edward Dehaney, bookseller, pleaded not guilty’ before Mr W. F. Stilwell, S.M., to two charges brought under the Indecent Publications Act. Both charges, which were in the nature of test cases, related to pictures in the March number of HcMlth and Sunshine. Lehaney was charged with exhibiting an indecenlt document, the two pictures concerned, to the view of the public in his shop window and with selling an indecenlt document.

The main line of defence was that in two decades since a leading case was decided public opinion, “like bathing suits,” had changed and that nudism as a cult had made marked sitrides. It was also contended that the magazine complained of advocat-

ed a serious’ and honest effort to improve the welfare of the nation and aimed only at those objectives stated by the present Government as its ideal.

Detective-Sergeant Doyle said he obtained ’the necessiary consent of the Solicitor-General to institute a prosecution.

Mr Mellish (for the defendant): "Did you ascertain iwlieiiiier Health and Sunshine was sold at any (Other bookseller’s?" Witness;. “We tried, but we were not able to procure another copy. The booksellers had all sold out”

Counsel: "Do yon ku-iv it anyone s.t Auckland was prosecuted in connection with the fatuous domain sta_ tpe?" Witness: ‘'l don” th.uk so.”

Mr Stillwell: “Mr Mellish, you are introducing a subject about which there was a lot of controversy.” Mr Mellish (to the witness): “If I were to tell you tha/t a young lady at a recent music hall show in New Zealand wore only a coat of paint and a pair of V’s would you consider it indecent?’’ Witness: "I would have to see for myself.” Mr Mellish. “You would consider the representation of an unclothed figure pj-ima facie indecent?" Witness: “If without artistic merit, probably yes.” Mr Mellish: “Three unditaped wax models recently lounged for half an hour in a Wellitigton shop window. Were .they indecent?” Witness: "No; in my opinion.” Mr Mellish: “Did you know that'a prominent Auckland clergyman (named) was a contributor to Health and Sunshine?” \ Wiltness: nave no knowledge of the matter.” For the prosecution Mr Cunning, hlam said both of the pictures complained of showed figures entirely undraped and legally prima facie indecenlt. He quoted an authority to show that nudity in an urt gallery differed from nudity made public in streets and referred -to the facts l of a leading case, Clarkson v. McCarthy.

Mr Mellish called no evidence. He said: “The case quoted was decided 20 years ago, when we were little removed from the mental strait-jacket of Victorianism. Nudism is supported by some of the foremost minds and intellectual leaders. New Zealand has in its puritanical attitude long been considered to lag behind other nations in all these masters.”

Mr Stilwell said he would give his decision when he had given the whole matter full consideration.