Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Newton L. A. Eastman, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-05-21
Citations: 188 N.Y. 478
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Newton L. A. Eastman, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 478–489

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Newton L. A. Eastman, Respondent.
(Argued April 4, 1907;
decided May 21, 1907.)
Crimes — Indecent Publications—Penal Code, § 317. The word “ indecent,” as used in section 317 of the Penal Code, relates to obscene prints or publications. It is not an attempt to regulate manners, but it is a declaration of the penalties to be imposed upon the various phases of the crime of obscenity. A publication, therefore, attacking a body of Christian clergymen, although vile, scurrilous and reprehensible, is not indecent unless it is lewd, lascivious, salacious or obscene and has a tendency to excite lustful and lecherous desire.
People v. Eastman, 116 App. Div. 922, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment and order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Oourt in the fourth judicial department, entered December 8, 1906, which affirmed a judgment of the Monroe County Court sustaining a demurrer to an indictment charging the defendant with the crime of selling and having in his possession with intent to sell printed matter of an indecent character.
The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions.
Howard H Widener and Stephen J. Warren for appellant.
The statute itself is descriptive of the offense and does not describe or attempt to define what is indecent, but forbids “ printed matter of an indecent character.” (People v. Muller, 96 N. Y. 408; Regina v. Hicklin, L. R. [3 Q. B.] 369.)
Albert II Stearns for respondent.
The publication referred to in the indictment is not “ indecent ” within the meaning and intendment of section 317 of the Penal Code. (People v. Muller, 96NE. Y. 408 ; People v. Allen, 20 Misc. Rep. 120 ; U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 396; U. S. v. Wilson, 58 Fed. Rep. 768; People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423; U. S. v. Smith, 11 Fed. Rep. 663; U. S. v. Bennett, 16 Blatchf. 338; Dunlop v. U. S., 165 U. S. 486; Swearingen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 447; U. S. v. Wrightman, 29 Fed. Rep. 636; McJenkins v. State, 10 Ind. 140.)

Opinion:
Per Ouriam.
The court is of opinion that the publication set forth in the indictment is improper, intemperate, unjustifiable and highly reprehensible, nevertheless it is not " indecent" as that word is employed in section 317 of the Penal Code.
The definitions given by the standard lexicographers are not controlling in deciding its legal signification; many meanings as used in ordinary conversation are also irrelevant.
Section 317 of the Penal Code is found in chapter VII, headed as follows: " Indecent Exposures, Obscene Exhibitions, Books and Prints, and Bawdy and Other Disorderly Houses."
Section 317 opens as follows : " § 317. Obscene prints. 1. A person who sells, lends, gives away or shows, or offers to sell, lend, give away, or show, or has in his possession, with intent to sell, lend, or give away, or to show, or advertises in any manner, or who otherwise offers for loan, gift, sale or distribution, any obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting book, magazine, pamphlet, newspaper, story paper, writing, paper, picture, drawing, photograph, figure or image, or any written or printed matter of an indecent character; "
It is clear from the manner in which the legislature has used the word "indecent" that it relates to obscene prints or publications; it is not an attempt to regulate manners, but it I is a declaration of the penalties to be imposed upon the variI ous phases of the crime of obscenity. The word " indecent " is used in a limited sense in this connection and falls within the maxim of nosoitur a sociis.
The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.