The sun., 1905-12-04


THOMAS p. WICKEs, an athletic and
somewhat prominent trial lawyer whose
figure was familiar in our court rooms,
was indicted last June by the Grand
Jury of this county for blackmail,
under Section 55S Of the Penal Code
The circumstances which led up to the
indictment were so dramatic in character
as to make the case one of the most ex-
traordinary which have thus far claimed
public attention.
Mr.. WICKEs was one Of the counsel
in a civil action for false Imprisonment
brought by DR.. AsHBEL PARMALEE
GRINNELL, formerly dean of the medi-
cal school of the University of Vermont
against Commodore EDWARD WESTON
Of Newark, New Jersey.
It would appear that through some
error of mistake in identification Com
modore WESTON caused the arrest of
DR.. GRINNELL at the Grand Central
Station having mistaken the doctor
for some confidence man who had gotten
the better of the Commodore. When
Dr.. GRlNNELL was arraigned for exam
ination before the committing mag istrate
the error was al once discovered, ana
DR.. GRINNELL was discharged with
apologies from the complainant, Com
medore WESTON. An action for S50,OoO
for damages for malicious prosecution
OF false Imprisonment was subsequently
brought against Commodore WESTON by
DR.. GRlNNELL. Mr. WICKEs was one
of the counsel for the plaintiff, and on
the first trial IA jury gave DR.. GRlNNELL
$l2 500 damages. The verdict was set
aside for some technical error, and on
the second trial the plaintiff recovered
$4,000, and this second verdict was sub
seuuentlv set aside mistrial then
ensued before Justice Belts, owing to the
illness Of one Of the jurors, and finally
the fourth trial came up last Spring.
In February, 1905, Commodore WESTON
received several letters signed LEWIS
JARVIS" and with the embossed head
ing engraved thereon LEWIS JARVIS,
Lock Box 1904 New York" One Of
these letters read:
My DEAR CoMuoDoHE Please pardon me
for lntrudlng upon your holiday You have enter.
taned me very handsomely in the past. and would
| be glad to do you some service.
May write that many OF your friends think
YOU have pursued this lawsuit with Dr. GRrSNElL
| long enough' You must know you never win
the case. The other jury gave $1,000.
THIS jury gave $4,000. Would II do any good TO
appeal = You were favored by good for.
tune. TOO. Dr GRiSNELL was very kind and gen
I rd, n, n trS
osul1IvAN summed the case up on the plaintiffs
: side II Mr, wICKEs had made the hnal address
to the jury believe that the verdict would have
| been at least s2OOOO against you.
But the publicity given 10 the matter hurts
| your good name all your friends here are saying
so. The newspapers were full OF 1t In March, 1901
again at the last trial they published columns about
| IT. and 10 day every one Of the morning papers
| Ind an item about the verdict 1t is not matter
Of money with you of course l know that; but
would II not he better for your reputation TO stop
the case here Very truly yours,
LEWIS JARVIS"
Two other letters were received from
LEWIS JARVIS" in the same month,
and at the beginning of the last trial, in
! Nav. final letter came from the same
| writer. In this last letter LEWIS JARVIS"
said that Commodore WESTON had
sworn to two contradictory answers in
! his civil litigation against DR.. GRINNELL,
and suggested that the whole matter
might be referred to the District Attor-
nev, saying: ain one you swear that
Won did cause GRINNELLs arrest; in the
other YOU swear that YOU did not have
L -, sto1 Tho lattar anIa1 wit
these words
81 tried to tell YOU all this last February, but
you wouldn't listen TO me What you have done
| YOU seem TO have done deliberately There is only
one chance for you TO get out. VIII you be man
enough to take 1t and be quick about IT, or will you
continue TO be led like blind man. upon advice
which still believe must be against your own
good judgment. but which. Just as surely you
live will take you to Sing Sing"
1t is now alleged that these letters
were written by Mr. WICKEs under the sig
nature of LEWIS JARVIS, and on evidence
of the identity of JARVIS and WICKEs the
indictment was predcated.
The question of law which will arise
on the criminal trial of Mr., WICKEs is,
assuming that all the allegations of fact
are duly proved by credited evidence:
Does the letter of May, 1905, amount to
backmail? The question is not whether
such procedure is excusable or not
! for it certainly could not be excused
from any moral or ethical standpoint
! but the question Is technically, Does