Ewart (D) was a newspaper vendor and sold a copy of a paper containing obscene matter. At trial, D claimed that he honestly did not know that the obscene material was in the paper. The prosecution claimed that the anti-obscenity law was strict liability. The defense claimed that the prosecution was burdened to show that D knew what he was selling. D was convicted and appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.