"NEW ZEALAND TRUTH."

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9710, 4 February 1910, Page 5

"NEW ZEALAND TRUTH."

CHARGE OF OBSCENITY. JUDGE'S ADDKESS TO THE GRAND JURY. SOME INTERESTING REMARKS. In the course of his address to the Grand Jury at the opening of the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Mr Justice Chapman referred a some length to the charge against Henry Stephen Coburn, who is accused nf distributing for sale obscene printed matter. The publication forming the subject of the charge is the newspaper known as the "New Zealand Truth.'* The case, his Honor said, was one of considerable public importance. A man was charged with distributing an indecent publication. He was charged under a section of the Crimes Act, w"ich enacts that "Everyone is liable to imprisonment who. without lawful justification or excuse, publicly sells or exposes for public sale, or to public view, or distributes for public sale or public view, any obscene books or other printed or written matter or any picture, photograph, model, etc." What was alleged to have been distributed in this case was a public newspaper—that is, a paper printed not for a particular class, as a medical journal, but a paper which could be bought by the public on the street. The law decreed that the motives of a man in publishing indecent matter should not be relative to the inquiry. The jury had to find whether the accused person had distributed the paper, and whether the paper came under the description of obscene matter. His Honor would hand to the jury the paper in question, and he was afraid he must ask the juryment to read the whole of the article, occupying about two columns of the paper. The Crown contended that it had been totally unnecessary to publish the matters there set out. They were reminiscences of indecent acts—improper and immoral acts committed long ago. One of them appeared to relate back to au incident that took place more than forty years ago. One could understand that in current matters under discussion involving indecency, it might be difficult to say whether it was proper or improper to publish certain matter. What the prosecution relied on was that the publisher of this paper had raked over old, stale i filth for the purpose of selling his • newspaper, and for pandering to L people with depraved tastes. The ; jury had really to determine whether " these were right or proper things 3 to publish in a paper having a genL eral circulation. If they found that ' they were not proper things, they - would go further and determine 1 whether they were obscene. Thev 5 would give attention to the style s in which the article was written to [ the matter contained in it, and to 3 the needs of the case that is, the I question whether there was s any real " bona fide reason for the publication t of such matter. r The jury returned a true bill, and 3 the case will come on for trial in due - course.—"New Zealand Times."