The San Francisco call., 1896-02-22
MUST STAND TRIAL.
Mrs. DaVidson's Demurrer to the
Information Against Her
OVerrulAd

The demurrer to the Information filed
against Mrs. Mary a. Davidson was over
ruled by Judge Bahrs yesterday and she
was ordered to plead. Not guilty was her
plea, and then she was ordered to appear
for trial on Monday, March %.
Counsel for all parties was present when
the case was called, and all listened eagerly
to the following opinion By the court:
Defendant was arraigned upon the ground OF
eXtortion. Her counsel thereupon filed de-
murrer TO the information, setting forth nu-
merous causes OF demurrer, but in their argu-
ment relying mainly upon the ground that the
information failed to state public offense.
The main contention made by counsel is that
the Information alleges the defendant to have
acted as the agent OF one Jane Eliza be tn Bad
din, In having communicated to DR.. C. O.
Brown a threat that Jane Elizabeth Baddin
would impute to him the crime of adultery un-
less he paid the defendant the sum of 5000 and
some further monthly payments, the argument
OF counsel being that defendant could not be
convicted of the crime OF extortion if she did
not threaten that she herself would impute 10
Dr.. Brown the derogatory matter sci forth in
the information.
1t is conceded by counsel that if Jane Eliza
beth Baddln had in person communicated the
said threat under the circumstances related
and had obtained the money, she would have
been guilty OF the crime OF extortion.
In the face of this admission cannot under
stand by what process of reasoning counsel ar
equally guilty when she does the same thing
on behalf of Mrs. Baddin and as her agent.
One OF the most familiar maximS of law is
that all persons are presumed to know the law.
This is a conclusive presumption which can
not be rebutted by evidence. Therefore the
defendant is conclusively presumed to have
known that the threat with the demand for
and the obtaining OF the money was a crime,
viz, eXtortion.
Another rule of law which must be consid-
cred in conjunction with the above maxim is
that laid down by section 81 of the Penal
Code, viz.
Gail persons concerned in the commiss ion of
a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor,
and whether they directly commit the act con-
stituting the offense, or aid and abet in its
commission, or, not being present, have ad-
Yised and encouraged its commission, are
principals in any crime so committed
Conceding the existence of Mrs. Baddin can
the conclusion be avoided that in what she
did the defendant was aiding and abettinp
Mrs: Baddln 10 commit the crime OF extortion?
l think not.
The greatest fault, however, of counsePs ar
gument lies in their assumption that the in
formation charges the defendant with being
the agent of Jane Elizabeth Baddin A care,
ful reading of the informa tion shows this
assum ption to be absolutely unwarranted
The charging part OF the Information COM
mences as follows: "The said Mary A. David
son, on the 22d day OF November. A d. 1895
at the said City and County OF San Francisco
State of California, devising and intending to
extort money from one Charles o. Brown did
wlllfully, unlawfully ana feloniously and YER
DdlIy AdAe ulu 10 SAID Charles
o. Brown threat to impute to him disgrace
which would expose him 10 public hatred con-
tempt and ridfcule, and would impeach the
honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation of
him, Charles o. Brown" (Here there is inter
polated certain matter to be hereafter COM
mented upon.)
The information concludes: "And said
Mary A. Davidson did then and there, bv
means OF said threats and with the consent of
said Charles o. Brown, induced by q wrongful
use OF fear, to wit, by fear induced by said
threats, wlllfully, unlawfully and feloniously
obtain and extort from said Charles o. Brown
certain money, to wit. the sum of $500 in law
full money of the United States, of the value of
$500 in lawful money of the United States, and
of the personal property of said Charles o.
Brown. All OF which is contrary u" etc.
The matter quoted constitutes the only
charging part of the Information, sets forth
the ultimate facts necessary TO be proven to
sustain a conviction, and follows the language
of the statute. Under the rules of pleading,
if the matter quoted had solely constituted
the information. there could be no question of
its sufficiency. In the matter quoted there is
no intimation of agency, or that defendant
acted otherwise than in her own behalf.
The matter interpolated is in the following
language: "She, the said Mary A. Davidson
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously ana verbally state TO said Charles
O. Brown that she, said Mary A. Davidson,
was the agent Of one Jane Elizabeth Baddin,
and that she, Mary A. Davidson. was acting
for her, said Jane Elizabeth Baddin, and then
and there with said intent did willfully, un-
lawfully and fcloniously and verbally threaten
said Charles o. Brown thas unless he, said