delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appeal of Cloyd is from a conviction of violating T.C.A. see. 39-3001 reading as follows:
“39-3001. Obscene books, ballads or рictures — Misdemeanor. — If any person print, publish, import, sell or distribute any book, pamphlet, ballad, or printed paper containing obscene language or obscene prints, pictures, or descriptions, manifestly tending to corrupt *696 the morals, or introduce the same into any family, school, or place of education, or have the samе in his possession for the purpose of loan, sale, exhibition, or circulation, or with intent to introduce the same intо any family, school, or place of education, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
It was amended subsequent to thе alleged commission of this offense by a 1957 Act, with which we are not here concerned.
A Captain in the Inspectоr General’s. Department of the United States Army saw some obscene pictures and vile printed matter in the possеssion of some person in his command. As a result, this Captain, whose name was Fuhr, went to a public place of business in Knоxville known as Lockett’s. He expressed a wish to buy some such pictures and literature. His testimony is that after some hesitation Cloyd, in charge of the store at the time, sold him six booklets containing pictures and printed matter, and for eaсh of which six booklets he paid this clerk $2. The next day he took them to the Safety Director for Knoxville, turned them over tо him and was reimbursed the $12 paid for them the day before. They are in evidence.
This Captain positively identifies plaintiff-in-еrror as the person who sold him these booklets. Cloyd denies this, and in support of that denial says that his hours on duty did not commence until 4:00 P.M. each day, whereas this Captain testified that he bought these booklets at 1:00 P.M. Cloyd says he was not there at 1:00 P.M. He is corroborated by this by his employer, Lockett. The bill of exceptions is in narrative form, and rather skimpy. But it is true that the foregoing sharply drawn *697 issue of fact was decided by the jury in favor of the credibility of the Captain. Its finding on this score is final herе.
One ground of the motion for a new trial is that “certain .evidence was improperly submitted to the jury”. Assignment of error No. 2, rеlying upon the foregoing ground of a motion for a new trial, is that the Trial Court erred in permitting introduction of certain evidеnce of a subsequent raid some weeks after the foregoing alleged sale.
We cannot consider this assignment оf error because Rule 14(5),
Based on the fact that the testimony of Caрtain Fuhr is not corroborated by other testimony, it is insisted that the conviction is not supported by evidence.
This insistence оverlooks the fact that plaintiff-in-error was violating the law independent of Captain Fuhr. He was possessing this obscene literature for the purpose of sale, exhibition, circulation, etc. Applicable here is the rule last repeated, perhaps, in
Goins v. State,
“The purpose of the detective or governmental agent is not to solicit the commission of, not to create, *698 an offense, bnt to ascertain if the accused "is eií¿ in an unlawful business, or to entrap the aéfé¿ÍÍk,lÍt''M> the act of committing an offense which he has reasbii-1 able grounds to believe the accused has- ¡cоmmenced, or is about to commence.” /•- .I
Another assignment of error is that1 •"Ti'C’.A. sdc1.1-39-3001 violates the 14th amendment to tlíe ifedеfál Cóli1-’ stitution in that it is, so the brief says, “ a1 fiddle 'pocf^e5”* of an uncertainty. By way of argument',"théh,i‘theí"b,í,i‘ef' inquires: '
“Where are the lines drawn?” Whаt 5s“‘ó'b'Sc'éne ? What must be proven to show thaWsbrnuthiAg,' if áiyi* thing, manifestly tends to cor,rñ]ií''intírálk?'‘'Wha:t ’iá1 moral and what is not moral ¡OTliei.oose'ly diSiWn'^ta't-d ute will not meet the requ'ir!árüé¿t'Si,df' sfa’tifto'ryi'ctih-''' struction let alone the constitutionality.'”’''
•
O 1 Í5 ) l 4 ” h>lil Ijill) *i That is a criticism directed, not to the constitutionality Cl mil
■u l
mi ¡ni i <il In; IM.i of the code section, but to the question of whether.the runjHVii »> it T in j 11 >m facts established by evidence in a^iy.^iyepjCasq.fan withii^ the prohibitions of that code section.' But a complete answer to the question put as to wkát is ’obs'céne' 'df iVhkt manifestly tends to сorrupt niorklsyoi-1 ’a's fcó-1 what1 •id1 moral or immoral appears in Abbot v. State
“The common sense of the comiaumy aS'Wielhas'tlwB sense of decency, propriety and midaálilty* jsi<sufficient! Cfd a>$ply those'-statutes to e.adh>ipаir¡tieiflaif -ehse ¡'aindi point out what pedicular ■'tíondMt lb ¡rendered ctami®al!' by them.”
*699
Plaintiff’s-in-error brief quotes from a 1957 decision of United States Supreme Court in
Butler v. State of Michigan,
“We have Ipef,oretus.legislation, not, Reasonably restricted to the evil with which it is said to deal. The incidence i of :< this i emactmenti, sis ; to. \ reduce tthe adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children. ’ ’ Kil .-■O t. .¡a
The Tennessee statute is not reasonаbly capable!/'in* the ojfihron 'of th'is1 Court, ■ to'1 'such' k1 bohstfuctioh: •The‘‘j)ii:iC pose1 of"ltfie"'Tefi1ííessee, Statute "is' tó p'feveh't a сommon nuisance, sucl^ pictures and publications ’ Aeíñg''exactly that. See 67 C.J.S. Obscenity sec. 17 p. 39. In so1 iiar'as' rwj<»[ I iví lo 1 <» »*i •> m i • j >» * » imj ul “ biuii . •. 111 < 11 r j ivi j .iliih'ir* .•'! this. Court is .awаre there is nothing,in, the 14th amendment to th$, ¡Efeder&l sf&tq, legislatures from taking such action.
-‘Thyipilcthre's'iA"thelb,eo'ldét&'lfept f or¡ ¿ale,1 'etc.,' nnd' sold by' Óloyd"fó Captaihl'Euhr‘ were1 photo'graphs’ of' naked men and women engaged not only in acts of sexual intercourse, but engaged in various unnatural sexiiáí acts* too1 reprehensible to pul;pn^pfint.^The^wri^ngjn^thqse,book-lets was with reference to such acts and as vile as a . . dimii < niiT.iu i i ,<■.-aii >a 11 s s:, ;i deprаved mind could coimire up. To say that a statute PU?kffli];ingutkR„PPSft9,s,8ips,,§qjp,.&i,?fribqti,on, fitfe,.Qf..sqch booklets isi.u1; statute .iiEir’wiolatioin..of..!any- constitutional amendment is to asseft thaiti-i'wJijchi,dfift§ (nQf .qpp.eql-ffq, Luo is.j i I j .i j i m u j> 1 Í j j í ! 111;> .mmimu'Chu íoiji diniiii ok-'Í’,1-/
'TuAgmenffaffirmed.,,lmi .... ,“‘n