—
Casanovas Heinfahr
30 . . n en e en ene e eteten e en el e
box 4/11
26
with Mademoiselle De Maupin', by Gautier, says
through Judge Andrews: “It contains many para¬
graphs, however, that taken by themselves are vul¬
gar and indecent. No work may be judged from a
selection of such paragraphs alone. Printed by
themselves, as would a similar collection selected
from Aristophanes or Chaucer or Boccaccio, or even
from the Bible, they might doubtless, as a matter of
law, come within the prohibition of the statute'
In the Halsey case, the Court of Appeals made less
illiberal the test set out in the Muller case (96 N.
in People, etc. v. Brainard, in the first instance
which was prior to the Halsey case decision in the
Court of Appeals.
The same principle of law governing the manner
in which publications should be judged, is also laid
down in St. Hubert Guild v. Quinn (supra). The
court there, at page 584, says: " The judgment of
the court below is based upon the few passages in
each of these works and these passages have been
held to be of such character as to invalidate the
contract upon which the action has been brought.
These few passages furnish no criterion by which
the legality of the consideration of the contract can
be determined. That some of these passages, judged
by the standard of our day, mar rather than en¬
hance the value of these books can be admitted with¬
out condemning the contract for the sale of the
books as illegal. The same criticism has been di¬
rected against many of the classics of antiquity and
against the works of some of our greatest writers
frops Chancerto Walt Whitman, without being re¬
garded as sufficient to invalidate contracts forthe
sale and publication of their works'.
Books will not be banned by law merely becanse
they do not serve a useful purpose nor teach any
moral lesson (People v. Brainard & Harper &
Casanovas Heinfahr
30 . . n en e en ene e eteten e en el e
box 4/11
26
with Mademoiselle De Maupin', by Gautier, says
through Judge Andrews: “It contains many para¬
graphs, however, that taken by themselves are vul¬
gar and indecent. No work may be judged from a
selection of such paragraphs alone. Printed by
themselves, as would a similar collection selected
from Aristophanes or Chaucer or Boccaccio, or even
from the Bible, they might doubtless, as a matter of
law, come within the prohibition of the statute'
In the Halsey case, the Court of Appeals made less
illiberal the test set out in the Muller case (96 N.
in People, etc. v. Brainard, in the first instance
which was prior to the Halsey case decision in the
Court of Appeals.
The same principle of law governing the manner
in which publications should be judged, is also laid
down in St. Hubert Guild v. Quinn (supra). The
court there, at page 584, says: " The judgment of
the court below is based upon the few passages in
each of these works and these passages have been
held to be of such character as to invalidate the
contract upon which the action has been brought.
These few passages furnish no criterion by which
the legality of the consideration of the contract can
be determined. That some of these passages, judged
by the standard of our day, mar rather than en¬
hance the value of these books can be admitted with¬
out condemning the contract for the sale of the
books as illegal. The same criticism has been di¬
rected against many of the classics of antiquity and
against the works of some of our greatest writers
frops Chancerto Walt Whitman, without being re¬
garded as sufficient to invalidate contracts forthe
sale and publication of their works'.
Books will not be banned by law merely becanse
they do not serve a useful purpose nor teach any
moral lesson (People v. Brainard & Harper &