box 4/11
Casanovas Heimfahr
30. enenenen e G
13
It is urged by the complainant in this case that
the Court of General Sessions and the District At¬
torney in effect connived to condone the sale of
the volume, and agreed to the discharge of the de¬
fendant on a promise not to continue the criminal
offense in the future. This is no more credible
than would be a statement to the effect that after
a man had been indicted for stealing fifty automo¬
biles, the indictment was subsequently dropped on
his promise not to steal any more automobiles. True
enough, in courts of first resort, such as the Magis¬
trate’s Court, practice analogous to this might
occur and might not be frowned upon; but surelyy
after a mandate from the Grand Jury to bring a
man to trial, neither the Courts nor the District
Attornevs have the power or right to condone a
crime already committed merely on the promise of
the accused not to commit any more.
The public has a right to assume that the dispo¬
sition of the Casanova case before Magistrate Simp¬
son and the ultimate failure to prosecute under the
indietment, meant that the prosecuting agencies of
the County beliered that no conriction could be
procured.
But entirely aside from all these considerations,
it is important to note that since the decision on the
demurrer in 1924, many decisions of the higher
courts of the State of New York have developed a
point of view toward the censorship of literature
which make it necessarv to declare“Casanova’s
Homecoming' immune from the penal law.