Case Name: PEOPLE v. BARONDESS
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-05
Citations: 8 N.Y. Crim. 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. BARONDESS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 376–383

Head Matter:
Court of Appeals.
May, 1892.
(Reversing 8 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 234.)
PEOPLE v. BARONDESS.
Extortion—Penal Code, §§ 552, 553, Sued. 1—Injury to Business.
Obtaining money from another with his consent induced by a threat to injure the business of the individual threatened, by persuading his employees to absent themselves from work, is extortion under sections 552 and 553, subd. 1, of the Penal Code.
In the trial of defendant for extortion, it appeared by the evidence on both sides that he was substantially the representative of striking workmen and made propositions on their behalf to their employers. To show what demands were made by defendant on behalf of the strikers, evidence was given of what was said at one of their meetings in reference to the conditions upon which they would resume their employment.—Reid, that such testimony was proper for the purpose of showing what they insisted upon and what the defendant endeavored to secure on their behalf.
The conclusion of the jury as expressed in their verdict will not be interfered with by the appellate court unless the preponderance of evidence is so great as to indicate either misunderstanding of the case or the influence of prejudice, passion or corruption.
Appeal by the people from an order of the general term of the supreme court, in the first department, reversing a judgment entered upon conviction of defendant, Joseph Barondess, at the court of oyer and terminer of New York county.
The opinion of the general term and the dissenting opinion of Judge Daniels will be found at 8 JV. T. Criminal Reports, 234, where the facts are also fully stated.

Opinion:
The judgment of the general term was reversed by the court of appeals upon the dissenting opinion of Judge Daniels, and no opinion was written by the judges, as follows:
Per Curiam.
" Order of general term reversed, and judgment of conviction affirmed, on opinion of Daniels, J., below."
Earl, C.J., Andrews, Finch and Peckham, JJ., concur.
Gray, J., reads for affirmance of general term. O'Brien and Maynard, JJ., concur.
A dissenting opinion was written by Judge Gray, as follows :