The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1883-04-07

defendant Is not acquainted with the Hawaiian
language an which the paper was written). that
ne al not Know IT, nature 4 the matter printed.
that u was brought 10 his ofhce by an officer Of
toe G~oYcTnmcut, and that ne considered il was
oAcIa! matter, the Jersoo bringing it Causing il
10 have the imprint Of the royal arms. In fact IL
was lctt To the Hawaiian foreman Of the office,
VINO takes sole charge OF the printing in the IIa-
walIan language, and Mr.. Grleye lad person.
ally nothing 10 do with IL.
1t Is not denied that the real import Of the Ian
guSge anu figures OF speech OF the paper which
was printed l. obscene.
The case Is submitted To the court solely on the
point OF law whether the defendant is crIminnlly
liable IN common nuisance for the printing of a
document which contained obscene matter. which
was IN Al language Of which lie MAS ignorant,
nothing putting him upon enquiry. and the copy
C .InIng from an Official or public sruIce. and in
tended 10 be used, and in fact. aiterward used
by officers Of the King as the programme of pub
lie festivities.
The strongest statements Of authority 10 sup
port the prosecution are such as are found IN /
Russell on crimes I'D. go. PSI. citins Lord Hard
wIcke in ,. Atkinson 472: " Though printing
papers and amphlets Is a trade by which pers Ins
get their livelihood, Yet they must take care To use
it with prudence and canton for it they print
anything that is libellous it IL no excuse to
say that the printer had no knowledge of
the contents and was entirely ignorant of
49, SNAb= SAAO L A1a Il w. - CaS
if a printer is confined in a prison to which his
servants have no access, and they publish Il libel
without his privity, the publication Of 1t shall
not be imputed to him"
Upon such foundation" says the text of
Russell, - 1t has for a long time been held that the
buying OF a book or paper containing libellous
matter, in a booksellers shop, is sufficient evil
deucc tn charge the master with the publication
although it does not appear that he knew of any
such book being then or what the contents thereof
were. and though he was not on the promises,
and had been kept away for Il long time by III
ness and it will not be presumed that 1t was
bought and sold by IA stranger but the master
must. ii lie suggests a"ythmS OF this kind IN hIs
excuse. prove il =" al,n from the text Of Russcl.
. Bat there aray be rts.s ia which the presump-
ton arising rom the pr"Irie'nFship OF u paper
may he rebuited.
FROM the above CITATIONS tie rule might be de-
rived hat in such II case ~ this at bar the pro-
prletur and maua-e at u printing press viii be
chargeahlc Tor an obscene document prime
in his establishment, the legal %ption
being that he knows the character of the work
doLe by his servants, and that his Ignorance
through mere iGatten;iOn or absence will not
relieve him fIom a responsibility which lies on
tiini. but that this legal presumption may b'
rchutted by actual proofs. l think that what IL
here taken as proved rebuts the legal presump
tiOn in his case. Mr.. Grievc had absolutely NJ
knowledge that the manuscript brought to hi,
Office contained obscene matter, and no circuD
sttJ ce called upon him to cause a scrutiny to bt
made of its contents. Quite the contrary. IL
h"id that a person innocent in fact. and no
chargeable with blame for being ignorant, Il
criminally responsible would be Il harsh cOnstruc
ton of the law.
\ fundamental principle of criminal law is ex
pressed IN the maxim dctuS non JGciL reum mas
mems St red, 1, c. The Act itself DIES not max,
a man guilty unless his intention were 80.
\ care very much in point is found in Ii ant
ii Lead Grim. Cases PIP. 55l-2. The indictmen
under the Mass. statute similar to our own
charged the defendant with selling a book con
tanning obscene language, but did not allese tin
defendants knowledge. Abbott j.. sustained
demurrer on this ground. holding that the knowl
edge was "A necessary ingredient, and saying tha
the argumcnt urged for the prosecution that i
was intended to make the sale OF such books pun
ishable-whether their contents were known u
not, should not obtain, saying that generally
intent. knowledge, is OF the very essence OF crin'
and there must be very strong reasons shown Il
take any case cut of the application of this gen
eral rule"
Upon such consideration l find the defendan
- Nnt Guilty." LAWRENCE MCCULLY,
Justice Supreme Court Sitting as Intermediar.
judge.
w r. Castle Tor Crown, A. S. HartwelI TO
defendant.
Honolulu, April 18th, 1888.