30
box 4/11
asanovas Heinfahrt
70
Magistrate's Court ok the Citg of
Nem Purk,
Bokovon or MANHATTAN—Fourrn Disrnier.
IN THE MATTER
JoHN S. SUMNER,
JOPINION.
against
SiafoN & Schusren, INc., Rosekr L.
SIMfoN and ALBERr Horr.
Before—Maunick H. Gorr#ins, Magistrate.
September 25th, 1930.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The defendants before the Court are the pub¬
lishers of a book entitled “Casanova’s Home
Coming“ by Arthur Schnitzler. An inquiry has
been had for the purpose of determining whether
complaints shall be taken against the defendants
and warrants issued for their arrest for violation
of Section 1131 of the Penal Law. Contemporary
wich the issuance of the summonses, the Court
issued a warrant of search, which was executed, and
several hundred volumes of the book now under
inquiry were seized.
There has been no contest on the part of the de¬
fendants as tosthe publication of the said book, nor
Dy the defendant salesman as to his having sold
the same.
The Court has had imposed upon it the duty of
reading this bock, which it has done carefully, and
has come to the conclusion that the book is not 8o
objectionable and suggestive in character as to war¬
rant judicial condemnation thereof.
box 4/11
asanovas Heinfahrt
70
Magistrate's Court ok the Citg of
Nem Purk,
Bokovon or MANHATTAN—Fourrn Disrnier.
IN THE MATTER
JoHN S. SUMNER,
JOPINION.
against
SiafoN & Schusren, INc., Rosekr L.
SIMfoN and ALBERr Horr.
Before—Maunick H. Gorr#ins, Magistrate.
September 25th, 1930.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The defendants before the Court are the pub¬
lishers of a book entitled “Casanova’s Home
Coming“ by Arthur Schnitzler. An inquiry has
been had for the purpose of determining whether
complaints shall be taken against the defendants
and warrants issued for their arrest for violation
of Section 1131 of the Penal Law. Contemporary
wich the issuance of the summonses, the Court
issued a warrant of search, which was executed, and
several hundred volumes of the book now under
inquiry were seized.
There has been no contest on the part of the de¬
fendants as tosthe publication of the said book, nor
Dy the defendant salesman as to his having sold
the same.
The Court has had imposed upon it the duty of
reading this bock, which it has done carefully, and
has come to the conclusion that the book is not 8o
objectionable and suggestive in character as to war¬
rant judicial condemnation thereof.