THE “TRUTH” CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2759, 7 February 1910, Page 7

THE “TRUTH” CASE.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE

in the course of his address to the Grand Jury at the opening of the criminal session of the Supreme Court at Wellington, on Wednesday last, Mr. Justice Chapman referred at some length to the charge against Henry Stephen Coburn, who is accused of 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, liis Honor .said, was one of considerable importance. A man was charged with distributing an indecent publication. He was charged under a section of the Crimes Act, which enacts that “Everyone is liable to imprisonment who, without lawful justification or excuse, publicly sells, or exposes for sale or public view, any obscene books or other printed or written matter or picture, photograph, model, etc.” What was alleged to have been distributed in this case was a public newspaper —that is, a newspaper 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 avoidd hand to tlie jury the paper in question, and ho was afraid ho must ask the jurymen 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 an incident that cook 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 w.as proper or improper to publish certain matter. What tho relied on was that the publisher of this paper had raked over old•, stale filth for the purpose of selling his newspaper, and for pandering to people with depraved tastes. The jury had really to determine whether these were right or proper things to publish in a ( paper having a general circulation. If they found they were not 'proper things they would go further and determine whether they were obscene. They would give attention to the style in which the article. was written, to the matter contained i'n it, and to the needs of the case —that- is, the question whether there was any real bona fide reason for the publication of such matter. The jury returned a true bill, and the case will come on for trial in due course. ' /