The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-05-27
The Barondess Conviction.

The most important decision rendered by
the Court OF Appeals in the batch Of opin-
ions handed down on Tuesday. was the
nfrmance of the judgment OF the Court Of
Oyer and Terminer OF this county whereby
JOSEPH BARONDESS was sentenced to I'M
rrisonment in State prison for term OF
one year and nine months for extortion.
Under the Penal Code OF this State extor-
tion is defined to be the obtaining OF prop
erty from another with his consent. in
luced by n use Of force or fear. or under
color OF official right. The same code de-
carcs that such fear ms will constitute extor-
ton may he induced by a threat to do an
unlawful injury to the person or property Of
the individual threatened. or to anv relative
Of his. or to any member Of his family"
The charge against BARoNDEss was that he
had cxtorted 500 from PoPKIN & MARKS. a
firm of cloakmallcrs whose employees were
ont on n strike. The proof tended to show
that BARoNDESs acted as the representative
Of the strikers in negotiations with the firm
relating to their return to work; that the
firm consented to comply with the demands
made in behalf of the strikers; that never
thcleSs the strikers did not come back: that
inquiry was made OF BARoNDEss. who said
that PopKIy q MARKS had got to pay him
$500 to have their people come back to work:
that the demand was finally reduced to 500,
and that this amount was paid to BARON
DEsS by PoPKtN in the belief that BARON
Dr:Ss had the power to prevent the men
from returning to their employment.
The trial took place before Judge CHARLES
II. VAN BRUST. the Presiding Justice OF the
General Term Of the Supreme Court in this
Judicial Department. He held that the
facts proved were sufficient to make out a
case Of eXtOrtion under the Penal Code
BAEONDEss was convicted. and appealed to
the General Term. The appeal was heard
in this branch OF the Supreme Court by
Judges BARRETT. INGRAHAM, and DANIELS
and it was there decided that the convic-
ton wns wrong in law and ought to be re-
ycrscd. 1t was held that statement that
the men would not work until BARoNDEss
WAS paid. was not q threat to do an unlaw-
full injury to tho property OF the COM
plainants; and furthermore that the threat
which tho Penal Code requires as an ele-
mcnt OF eXtortion. must be something more
than the expression Of an intention to in
jgrc property in an indirect way. Judge
BAEEETT said: This injury, whether to
person or property. must be direct" and
Judge INGItAHAM. who concurred with him,
added: " 1t seems clear that the evident in
tent OF the statute is that the threat should
be to injure specific piece Of property"
Judge DANIELS, however. disscnted from
these views Of his associates in the General
Term, expressing the opinion that the proof
in tho case made out threat to do IN UNI
lawful injury to property. and that busl-
ness was property rs much as the articles
included in its transactions.
From the General Term decision, the Dis
trict Attorney appealed to the Court Of APP
pcals; and that tribunal has sot aside the
order OF the General Term and reinstated
the judgment OF the trial court. thus leav-
ing the conviction in full force and effect.
While 1t will be necessary to make q criti-
cal examination OF the opinion of the Court
of Appeals to ascertain tho particular df-
fcrenccs between the judges there and the
Judges at tho General Term IL Is manifest
that the result reached could hardly hive
been arrived at except by holding that it Is
an unlawful Injury to the property of an
employer OF workingInen in this state to
prevent persons from returning to his SER
vice when tho consequence of their failure
to return involves pecuniary loss to him.