The sun., 1905-12-04

II come within the words OF the Penal
Code or the Criminal Statute? Black
mail is defined in Section 55S Of the Penal
Code as follows:
"a person who, knowing the contents thereof
and with intent, by means thereof. 10 ex'ort or
gain any money or other property or to do "ne''
or procure suy Illegal or wrongful acts Senos'
delivers. or In any manner causes to be forwarded
or received or makes and parts with for tho pur
pose that there may be sent delivered any letter
or writing, threatening,
a. TO accuse any person OF a crime: or,
- To do any injury to any person or TO any
property; or,
80. To publish or connive az publishing any
libel; or,
"4 TO expose or imputo to any person any de-
iorm,y or disgrace;
rs punishable by i'm Imprisonment for not more
than 1ve years"
Does the letter Of May Is, 1905, threaten
to accuse Commodore WESTON OF crime
when the writer says, after the sugges-
tion Of perjury:
"Wlll YOU be man enough to take It and be qhcR
about It, or Will you continue 10 be led like blind
man, upon advice which still believe must Do
against your own good Judgment, but which Just
as surely as you 1--we win lake you TO Sing SlnS'
Do the words of the letter threaten
to accuse Mr.. WESTON of the crime oil
perjury, or do they tell him that he has
sworn to contradictory aftidavits, and
that such contradiction in his sworn
answers will lead to his conviction?
Is the language used tantamount to a
threat or not? Is it for the trial court,
as matter of law, to construe the mean
ing of the language, or is the question
of meaning to be left to the jury? these
are nice questions, and it would be I'M
proper to give any opinion thereon
or to PREJUDICE or predetermlne the
questions involved.
In the case of the People against
WIGHTMAN, which was decided by the
Court Of Appeals on March /, 1887, 1t
was claimed on behalf of the defendant
that to support conviction under
Section j5S of the Penal Code for send
ing a threatening letter the letter COM
Ulaned of must not only in ltsell con-
tain threat, but it must on its face
be threat to do an illegal thing. And
Judge ANDREWS, in rendering the opinion
of the court, said:
"Itis doubtless true that demand for Indemnify
for a wrong made in good faith accompanied by
II suggestion that legal proceedings Will be resorted
10 unless satisfaction is voluntarily made, is not q
threat within the statute although the wrong is
one the disclosure OF witch would bring disgrace
upon the guilty party. bdt II the'party making
the demand knows tnut lie has suffered no wrong,
a threat to prosecute Unless settlement is made
might, we conceive. bring the case within the
statute although on the tacr OF the letter the party
writing II might seem be asserting only his legal
rights"
I'm that case the conviction was
affirmed. the court holding that the
evidence tended to prove that il was a
scheme to extort money by making a
false charge.
In another State il has been held that
il is Il crime to send Il letter containing
a threat made for the purpose OF inducing
an aupellaut to dismlss an appeal.
But the question OF the object OF the
letter in the WICKEs case is not the main
question. the issue here being whether
the words are threat on the part OF the
writer TO accuse the person addressed
of IL crime and. possibly also, whether
"I.fwIS JARVIS" knew that the charge
he made was u false charge.