The Hawaiian gazette., 1883-04-11
Aaluaiialr 6azettR,
WEDNESDAY, APRIL IL, 1883.
Interne diary Court Of oahu. March Trial
Day. Held By McCuIy j.
The KING VS.. ROBERT GRrEvE-


Tho defendant who is the manager and part
owner Of the HAWAIIAN GAZETTE printing
of;ce Is CHARGED with the offence of Common
Nuisance in printing an obscene paper, to wit,
the programme Of the Hulas or Hawaiian
dances to be performed as part Of the corona
ZION festivities 1t is agreed that the record
Of the Police Court be taken, and it is admit
ted to be proved that the defendant is not ac-
ouainted with the Hawaiian language Tin
which the paper was written, that be did not
know the nature OF tho matter printed, that 1t
was brought to his Office by an officer Of the
Government, and that he considered it was
official matter, the person bringing 1t causing
it to have the imprint Of the Royal arms. In
fact It was left to the Hawaiian foreman Of the
Office, who takes sole charge of the printing in
the Hawaiian language and Mr.. Grieve had
personally nothing to do with it.
tits not denied that the real import of the
language and figures Of speech OF the paper
which was printed is obscene.
The case is submitted to the Court solely on
the point Of law, whether the defendant is
criminally liable in common nuisance for the
printing Of document which contained OBJ
scene matter, which was in Language OF which
he was ignorant, nothing putting him upon en-
quiry, and the copy coming from an othclal or
public source, and intended to be used, and in
fact afterward used by officers of the King as
the programme of public festivities.
The strongest statements OF authority TO
support the prosecution are such as are TO be
found in | Russell on Grimes, PIP. $50, 25l,
citing Lord Hardwicke in Atkinson 412,
"Though printing papers and pamphlets is a
trade by which persons get their livelihood,
vet they must take care to use it with prudence
,,,,,;o,. for if fhoy rrint thing that ia
libelous il is no excuse to say that the printer
had no knowledge of the contents and was en-
tirely ignorant of its being libellous." Hawk.
P. G. c. 10, "But if a printer is confined in q
prison to which his servants have no access,
| and they publish libel without his privity,
the publication of it shall not be imputed to
him" Upon such foundation" says the text
of Russell, !" it has for long time been held
that the buying Of 4 book or paper containing
libellous matter, in booksellers shop, is suf-
6ceut evidence TO charge the master with the
publication, although it does not appear that
| he knew OF any such book being there, or what
the contents therof were, and though be was
not on the premises, and had been kept away
for longtime by illness; and it will not be
presumed that it was bought and sold by a
| stranger; but the master must, if he suggests
anything of this kind in lis excuse, prove It, y
| Also from the text of Russell. But there may
be cases in which the presumption arising
from the proprietorship of paper may be re-
butted."
From the above citations the rule might be
| derived that in such case as this at bar, the
proprietor and manager of a printing press
| will be chargeable for an obscene document
| printed in his establishment, the legal pre-
sumption being that be knows the character Of
| al. l. h. l. ufa npI hat nc
| ignorance through mere inattention or absence
| will not relieve him from responsibility
which lies on him, but that this legal pre-
| sumption may be rebutted by actual proofs.
| l think that what is here taken as proved re-
butts the legal presumption in bis case. Mr..
| Grieve had absolutely no knowledge that the
manuscript brought to his Office contained OBJ
scene matter, and no circumstance called upon
| him TO cause scrutiny to be made Of its con-
tents. Quite the contrary. To hold that a
person innocent in fact, and not chargeable
with blame for being ignorant, is criminally
responsible would be harsh construction of
the law
A fundamental principal of criminal law is
expressed in the MAXIM Aotus non Gach reunl
niSi mems Sh red, l. G: The act itself does not
make man guilty unless his intention were
| SO.
| A case very much IN point Is found IN b.
and H. Lead. Grim. Cases PIP. 55l-2. The in-
dictment under the Mass. statute similar TO
our own charged the defendant with selling a
book containing obscene language, but did not
allege the defendants knowledge. Abbott j.
sustained demurrer on this ground, holding
| that knowledge was necessary ingredient,
and saying that the argument urged for the
prosecution that it was intended to make the
sale of such books punishable whether theiI
contents were known or not, shonld not obtain
saying that generally, intent, knowledge, is
of the very essence Of crime and there must be
very strong reasons shown to take any case
out of the application of this general rule"
Upon such considerations find the defend
ant not gully.
WR. Castle for Crown. A S. Hartwel fol
defendant.
Honolulu, April 4, 1888