Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-11-08
Knox Ceunty-State VS. Fred NJ Black
ipotDu RaSpripf Smear L
Exceptions sustained.
Reed November 9Th, 1918.

Knox Ceunty-State VS. Fred Nj. Black
ington. Rescript, Spear, j.
This case involves an Indictment
charging extortien and comes up on
exceptions. The indictment contained
two counts. But the first count only Is
in question and reads as follows: The
Grand Jurors for said State upon their
oath present that Fred NJ. Backing
ton, of Rockland in the County OF
Knox. and State of Maine on the 26th
day of March, 1918, at Rockland, in
said county of Knox, verbally did fell
oniously and maliciously threaten TO
accuse Z. L. Hewett of a certain crime.
to wit: the crime of selling intoxicat-
ing liquor in violation of law with in
tent thereby to extort money from him
the said E. l.. Hewett."
After verdict of guilty the respon-
dent through his counsel filed mo-
ton in arrest of judgment for the fol-
lowing causes: First, because the first
count in the indictment upon which the
RESPONDENT was placed on trial does not
set out either the exact words of the
respondent or the substance OF the
words used by him, and that said
count does not conform to the require
ments of the law. Second, because UNI
der the indictment, as framed and re-
turned, it is insufficient under the law
to charge him with the offense alleg-
ed, as required by law. and that he
was rot bound to answer to said in
dictment. This count was evidently
drawn under r S. Chapter 119, Sec
ton 90, which provides: Whoever.
verbally, or by written or printed COM
munication maliciously threatens to ac-
cuse another of a crime or onense,
or Injuries his person or property, with
intent thereby to extort money or TO
procure an advantage from him. $3.50.
shall be punished, etc. The grava-
men of the charge contained In this
statute is an intent to extort money,
The threat is the manner in which this
is to be accomplished We think the
present indictment is sufficient. 1t spe-
officially alleged the offense charged,
and appraised the respondent of what
he was aecused-an intent to eXtort
money. 1t definitely alleged the crime
threatened, and informed him of what
it consisted-selling Intoxicating iq-
uors. The respondent, under this IN
dictment was made fully aware of the
charges he was required to meet. The
form of the language, m which the
threat was made, is not material. II
required to be set out, it might defeat
the very purpose of the statute. There
might be a variety of expressions In
which an ingenious mind might convey
threats without using any definite
phraseoogy. Yet, they would be effec-
tive, If sufficient to SO impress the
mind of the person threatened as to
accomplish the end in view. The stat
ute never intended the words should
be alleged as in the ease of libel or
SANDER. The language in which the
threat is made was intended as mat
ter of proof and not of pleading The
respondent is not charged with libel or
SANDER, but with threat to accuse of
certain offense. The question is not
whether his language is hbelcus, but
whether, whatever the form of express
sion it contained. a malicious threat to-
accuse of the offense charged. 1t, there
fore, seems clear that the interpreta-
ton of the language used, in convey
ing an alleged threat, is question of
fact for the jury. If, regardless of its
FORM it Is sufficient to prove the threat
then the offense threatened is estab-
lished. II the language is insufficient,
then the proof fails
During the course Of the trial many