+Guy Holt.+ New York City, November 14, 1922. BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANTS ON MOTION TO DIRECT AN ACQUITTAL INDEX PAGE I. The question presented is one of law, which the Court should decide 20 II. The test is the literary as distinct from the pornographic 21 III. In applying this test, all reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the book 30 IV. In judging the book by the standards above indicated, it must be read as a whole, and, on that basis, it must be upheld even though it may contain portions which would not stand the test if isolated 31 V. The book, read as a whole, sustains the test of the law 34 VI. The passages, to which reference has been made in the complaint originally filed in Special Sessions, are not indecent 57 VII. In conclusion 68 Court of General Sessions of the Peace IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK. ------------------------------- +People of the State of New+ } +York+ } } AGAINST } } +Guy Holt, Robert M. McBride+ } +& Company+ and } +Robert M. McBride+. } ------------------------------- Brief for Defendants on Motion to Direct an Acquittal. The defendants have moved for a directed acquittal at the close of the People’s case. The defendants did not dispute upon the trial the facts which went to make up such case as the People had. That case is that the defendants had in their possession, with intent to sell (they are publishers) a book, “Jurgen”, by Mr. James Branch Cabell; and it is contended that the book is lewd and obscene within Section 1141 of the Penal Law. 1--The Question presented is one of law, which the Court should decide. The rule here to be applied is that obtaining in all criminal cases. It is the Court’s duty to direct an acquittal when the People’s case has failed to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. _People_ v. _Gluck_ (188 N. Y. 167); _People_ v. _Smith_ (84 Misc. 348); _Babcock_ v. _People_ (15 Hun 347).