The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-22
l. A N ID L -.
The Apostle OF the New Dispensation
is Rewarded One Years Impri-
sor ment and $500 Fine.

The Commonwealth VS.. Simon NJ. Landis.
Motion for new trial.
The reasons for q new trial were numerous, |
but they may all be disposed of under few
heads. They relate
First. To the exclusion of evidence tending
TO show the scientific correctness of the book
complained of, and the fitness of such publi- |
cation Tor general information.
Second. To an expression of opinion by the
Judge as to the character of the book.
Third TO errors in charging the jury as to
what constituted an obscene libel, and as to what
extent publication is protected rs necessary
Tor general information and conducive to the
general welfare.
First Physicians were called MS experts to
show the scientific correctness of the book and
the necessity of such knowledge for general in
formation. l ruled at the trial that the book
might be true and scientifically correct in its
statements and descriptions, and yet be obscene;
that its obscenity did not depend upon its truth
fitness or falsity, but upon its tendency to intu
ence the passions and debauch society. The
character OF the book was question purely for
the jury in which they could not be aided by the
testimony of experts. Obscenity is determined
by the common sense and feelings of mankind,
and not by the skill of the learned. 1t was
therefore question for the jury, to be deter
mined by their examination of the publication,
and not by the opinions of others respecting it.
That which offends modesty, and is indecent
and lewd, and tends to the creation of lascivious
desires, is obscene Of this the jury were as
competent to judge as the most accomplished
experts in medical science. whose familiarity
with the subjects treated of in the book might
perhaps render them less susceptible to the
emotions which would be excited in the general
public by reading such publication.
Second. Relative to the expression of opinion
by the Judge as to the character of the book IL
was held by the Supreme Court, in Fitzpatrick
VS.. The Commonwealth, Z Casey, 1913, that
judge may rightfully express his opinion re-
specting the evidence, and it may sometimes be
his duty to do 1t, yet not so rs to withdraw it
from the consideration and decision of the jury.
Il ,J taurlt
that 1t is sometimes not only eXpedient but
necessary to the proper administration of law
and justice that a judge should express his
opinion on the evidence submitted to the jury.
His greater familiarity with the rules of evil
dence, the weight of the testimony, and its ap-
plication to the subject-matter of investigation,
requires that he should do so. But he should
always accompany it with The instruction that
the facts of the are for their determination,
under the evidence submitted to them.
In this case this instruction was repeated to
the jurymen more than once. They were told
they we're not to take my opinion of the book,
but were to determine its character from their
own examination OF 1t. Again, they were in-
structed that it was for them to determine the
character of the book; if in their judgment the
book was fit and proper for publication, and such
as should go into their families. and be handed
to their sons and daughters and placed In
boarding schools for the beneficial information
of the young and others, then it was their duty
to acquit the defendant. They were further in
structcd that if they had doubt of the OBJ
| scenity of the book, 1t were their duty to acquit
the defendant. This instruction left the whole
| question of the character of the publication to
| the jury. There was no controversy to the
publication of the book by tie defendant, as its
| publication was substantially, If not in terms,
admitted by him.
| The next alleged error relates to the charge of
the Court as to what constitutes an obscene
| libel, and to what extent publication is pro-
| tected as necessary for general Information and
| conducive to the public welfare.
| The iury were instructed that IL did not mat
| ter whether the things published in the book
| were true and in conformity with nature and
| the laws of our being; If they were unfit to be
| published, and tended to inilame improper and
| lewd passions, it was an obscene libel; that, to
| justify q publication of the character of
| this book they must be satisfied that
| the publication was made for a legitimate and
| useful purpose and that it was not made from
| any motive OF mere gain or with corrupt desire
| to debauch society. That even scientific and
| medical publications., containing illustrations
| exhibiting the human body, if wantonly exposed
| in the public markets with wanton and wicked
| desire to create demand for them, and not to
| promote the good of society by placing them
in proper hands for useful purposes, would,
| if leading to excite lewd desires, be held
| to be obscene libels. That before medical
| class for the purpose of instruction 1t might be
| necessary and proper and consonant with de-
cency and modesty to expose the human body
| for the exhibition of disease or for the purpose
| of operation, but that If the same human body
were exposed in front of one of our medical col
lHges to the public indscriminately, even for
fle purpose of operation, such an exhibition
| Would be held to be indecent and obscene.
| The jury were further instructed that publica-
tioDs of this character are protected when made
with a view to benefit society, and In manner
not to injuTe the public, but that mistaken idea
of the defendant to the character and tend
ency OF the book, If it was in itself obscene and
untit for publication, would not excuse his VIOLA
tion of the law.
| After having listened to the elaborate and
| earnest argument of the learned counsel of the
| defendant, l do not perceive that there was
| error either in the admission or exclusion o.
evidence, or in the charge to the jury. And
think that the verdict is sustained by both the
law and the evidence. The motion for new
trial is, therefore, overruled..
His Honor then addressed the prisoner Al
follows-
You have been convicted of publishing al
| obscene libel / know of no oifense which 81
tends to demoralze society as the oitense o
which you have been convicted. Whatever
tends to render impure the public mind is iniu
rious to society, and leads to its disintegratior
and destruction. 1t is our highest duty to keeI
pure the minds of the young and the mature
/. The publication of such books in q grea
! community like this, or in any community eithc
great or small, is an oifense of the most serious
, character; and the punishment affixed by law t
this offense even If applied to its fullest extent
is merciful to the offender, 1t is my duty, there
fore, to apply to you the full penalty of the law
The sentence of the Court is, that you pay
fine of $500, and undergo imprisonment in th
Philadelphia County Prison for the term OF on
) year.
) Landis lawyer requested that his client nigh
, be ut once sent below, in order that he nigh
3 accompany him to his CELL which simple reques
was mercfully granted.
, The Fate of one Scr0gRy, nm Apostle of lands
Thomas l.. Scroggy, convicted of selling lew
: | af nj Vine straatS nj th