Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. NEWTON L. A. EASTMAN
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-05
Citations: 21 N.Y. Crim. 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. NEWTON L. A. EASTMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 243–262

Head Matter:
COURT OP APPEALS,
May, 1907.
THE PEOPLE v. NEWTON L. A. EASTMAN.
(188 N. Y. 478.)
Indecent Publications—Penal Code § 317
The word indecent as used in § 317 of the Penal Code, relates to obscene points 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.
Affirming 116 App. Div. 922.
Appeal from a judgment and order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court 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 H. 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, 96 N. 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 Curiam.
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 is a declaration of the penalties to be imposed upon the various phases of the crime of obscenity. The word " indecent " is used in a limited sense in this connection and falls within the maxim of noscitur a sociis.
The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.
Cullen, Ch. J.
I concur in the opinion of the majority of
the court, that the article complained of does not fall within the provisions of section 317 of the Penal Code, under which the defendant was indicted, which section makes it a misdemeanor to sell, give away or show any " obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting book, paper or picture," etc. That the article is a scurrilous and vile attack on a large and respected body of Christian clergymen is unquestionable. That it is " indecent " from every consideration of propriety is entirely clear, but that is not the indecency condemned by this section of the Code. The preceding section punishes indecent exposure of person, the next section the sale of articles for indecent or immoral use. The chapter in which all the sections are found is entitled " Indecent exposures, obscene exhibitions, books and prints, and bawdy and other disorderly houses." From the context of the statute it is apparent that it is directed against lewd, lascivious and salacious or obscene publications, the tendency of which is to excite lustful and lecherous desire. That such is not the effect of the publication is clear from the fact that my brother who writes the dissenting opinion publishes it in full, and I am entirely certain that did he believe the tendency of the article was lecherous and salacious, he would find no justification for its publication in the fact that the majority of the court, from whose 'decision he feels constrained to dissent, entertain a contrary view. In the English case cited by my brother no part of the improper publication is reproduced, but the report is confined to a statement of its general character. I regret that the publication should appear in the reports of this court, not because I deem it lewd, but because I feel that the reports of this court should not be made the means of perpetuating a scurrilous and wanton slander on any class of the community. This is an example of the extent to which sectarian religious animosities may lead a weak and disordered mind, for it is mere charity to consider such to be the character of the writer of the production. Since, however, the article is to appear, I may challenge its comparison with many that have been published attacking the Mormon church. Surely, publications as to that church have gone far beyond the article now before us. It is no answer to-say that the Mormons, while they practiced polygamy, were justly subject to such strictures. The truth or falsity of the writing has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant under this section of the Code. If the charges contained in this article had been made, not against a class but against a single individual, and that individual a layman, not a clergyman, it would, doubtless, if false, have been a gross libel. But it would not be contended that if true it was indecent and should subject the party writing it to the penalties prescribed by the Code.
It does not necessarily follow that the defendant is amenable to no punishment. The charges in the article being against a whole class, no single individual could maintain an action for libel against its author (Sumner v. Buel, 12 Johns. 475), but not so, however, as regards a criminal prosecution for libel. The foundation of the theory on which libel is made a crime is that by provoking passions of persons libeled, it excites them to violence and a breach of the peace. Therefore, a criminal prosecution can be sustained where no civil action would lie, as for instance, in this very case, where the libel is against a class (Sumner v. Buel, supra; Palmer v. City of Concord, 48 N. H. 211; State v. Brady, 44 Kan. 435), and also in the case of a libel against a deceased person. It may be urged that the question whether the defendant should be prosecuted for an indecent publication- or for a libel is a technical one. This is very far from being the fact. So careful have the people of the state been to secure freedom of speech, subject only to punishment when a jury has found that that freedom has been abused, that by the various Constitutions of this state, ever since that of 1822, it has been expressly enacted that in a prosecution for libel the truth may be given in evidence and the jury shall have the right to determine the law as well as the fact. This applies to no other criminal prosecution.