HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0590 and id is 1 raw text is: Wilde, C. J.-You are here only at liberty to argue the question stated in the
case, upon the facts stated in the case.
Bodkin.-The letter does not contain any menace of the writer; and I apprehend
that the true ile is that laid down by Lord Ellenborough in the case of Rex v. Souther-
ton (6 East, 126), in which his Lordship says (id. 140, 141), To obtain money under
a threat of any kind, or to attempt to do it, is, no doubt, an immoral action ; but, to
make it indictable, the threat must be of such a nature as is calculated to overcome a
firm and prudent man. It must be a threat of such a kind as will sustain an in-
dictment at common law, according to one case, either attended with duress, or, ac-
cording to others, such as may overcome the ordinary free will of a firm man, and
induce him, from fear, to part with his money. The letter in the present case much
resembles that in the case of Rex v. Pickford (4 C. & P. 227), which was held not to be
a threatening letter within the statute.
Ballantine, for the prosecution.-That case is also reported in Greaves' edition of
Russell on Crimes (vol. 2, p. 716). Mr. Greaves was counsel for the prosecution, and
he adds a manuscript note of Mr. Justice Bayley (id. p. 717, n. (b)), that Tindal, C.
[886] J., Garrow, B., Park, J., and Bosanquet, J., thought-this a letter demanding
money with menaces ; the other eight Judges inclined to a contrary opinion.
Vaughan Williams, J.-It may be, that in that case the Judges thought that there
was no demand, and that there was a doubt whether there was a threat.
Alderson, B.-Just consider this expression: If I am at all deceived in any
possible way, all must fall upon yourselves. We need not decide anything about
the case of Rex v. Pickford, and yet may hold this to be a threatening letter.
Bodkin, in reply.-Lf this letter was a true communication, it is a meritorious one.
If it was a false communication, it is an attempt to get money by a false statement;
but it contains no menace on the part of the prisoner, and does not contain such a
threat as would affect, or be likely to affect, any banker with the smallest apprehension.
Wilde, C. J.-I cannot persuade myself into a doubt that this letter contains
that sort of demand which this Act of Parliament contemplates. The question is,
whether money is asked, and whether, in the event of its not being given, the person
written to is told that mischief will happen. My learned Brothers and myself all
think that the provisions of the Act of Parliament are satisfied by a letter asking
money, and using expressions calculated to make the other person part with it against
his will, under the impression that mischief will happen if the application for the
money is not complied with. A passage has been cited from Lord Ellenborough, to
shew that the threat must be such as to affect a firm man. This, we think, rathe
refers to the nature of the threat than to the strength of the nerves of the person
threatened. The writer of this letter threatens cracksmen, which, I presume, means
burg-[887]-lars, the burning of a banker's books, and the stopping of his bank; and
the writer says, If you give me money it shall not happen; if you do not give it,
it will. Now, without at all interfering with Pickford's case (for the case of every
letter must depend much on its own circumstances), I think that a letter, in which
the writer says that a certain evil will happen to you if you do not give me money
to prevent it, but if you do give the money, it will not happen, is within the Act of
Parliament that has been referred to, and my learned Brothers authorise me to say,
that their opinions coincide with my own. The conviction must be affirmed.
Judgment for the Crown.
October Sessions, 1849, before Pollock, C. B. ; Maule, J. ; and Cresswell, J.
Oct. 25th, 1849.
REGINA V. FREDERICK GEORGE MANNING AND MARIA, HIS WIFE.
(An alien woman, who has married a British subject, is not entitled, on her trial for
a felony, to be tried by a jury de medietate lingum. Whether an alien, who is
indicted jointly with a British subject for a felony, thereby loses the privilege of
being tried by a jury de medietate lingu,-quwre. [But held, in Swendsen's case
(14 St. Tr. 559), that he did not; Barre's case, Moore, 557, semb. cont.])
[Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 1 Den. 467.]
Murder.-The prisoners were jointly indicted for the murder of Patrick O'Connor
by shooting him with a pistol: in other counts the death was charged to have been
by fracturing his skull by a crowbar, and by suffocation.
Both prisoners pleaded not guilty; but Ballantine, for the prisoner Maria Manning,
claimed a jury de medietate linguce.
372
REGINA V. MANNING
2 CAR. & K. 886.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0590&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)