People v. Most

Decision Date16 June 1891
PartiesPEOPLE v. MOST.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of the general term of the supreme court of the first department, affirming a judgment of the court of general sessions of the peace entered upon the verdict of a jury convicting him of a violation of subdivision 3, § 451, of the Penal Code, which reads as follows: Whenever any three or more persons, ‘being assembled, attempt or threaten any act tending towards a breach of the peace, or injury to person or property, or any unlawful act, such an assembly is unlawful, and every person participating therein by his presence, aid, or instigation is guilty of a misdemeanor.’ The crime charged was predicated upon the proceedings of a meeting of anarchists held at a hall in rear of a saloon in East Seventh street in the city of New York, on the evening of the 12th of November, 1887, the day after Spies and others had been hanged in Chicago for the murder, by means of dynamite bombs and explosives, of a number of policemen. The meeting was addressed by the defendant. The evidence on the part of the prosecution of his utterances on that occasion is found in the testimony of two policemen who were assigned by their superior officer to attend the meeting, and of a newspaper reporter who was also present. Their version of the speech was flatly contradicted by the defendant and 10 or more witnesses called by him. The witnesses for the people varied somewhat in their narration of the occurrences on the evening in question, but they substantially agreed in regard to the most material points. It appears from the testimony that a similar meeting appointed to be held on the same evening had been suppressed by the police authorities. There were present at the meeting addressed by Most from 80 to 100 people, who were, in the main, anarchists, and the defendant openly avowed himself to be one. When he came into the hall he was greeted by the assembly with the words, ‘Here comes our leader, Father Most.’ He soon commenced speaking, and the following are among his utterances, as testified to by witnesses for the people: Brother anarchists, we were to have a meeting in Second avenue, in Florence Hall, over our dead brethren who were murdered in Chicago.’‘I have just received word that Captain McCullagh and his bloodhounds of police have stopped our meeting.’‘Let them beware. Hereafter our meetings will be held in secret, and God help them if we catch them in our socials.’‘It was a shame, and that the police spies,-the police hounds and the capitalistic press, their teeth were filed, were sharp, but that they would be blunted.’ The speaker then went on to extol the bravery of their brethren who had died on the gallows at Chicago. He also said: They were not properly hung; the weight was not heavy enough to break their necks; but their blood cries to heaven for revenge, and we will revenge them.’‘Our brethren in Chicago had not a fair trial; there was prejudiced evidence; there were capitalists on the jury; they held our brethren in prison until they could get perjured evidence to convict them.’‘If I had known the executioner who murdered-who strangled-our brothers, I would never rest until he had shared their fate.’‘The day of revolution will soon come. First of all will be Grinnell; then comes Judge Gary; then the supreme court of Illinois; then, the highest murderers of the land,-the supreme court of the United States. The most cowardly of all,-Oglesby, the governor of Illinois,-he must not think because he pardoned two of our brethren to a lingering death of life imprisonment he will be spared.’‘I again urge you to arm vourselves, as the day of revolution is not far off; and, when it comes, see that you are ready to resist and kill those hirelings of capitalists.’‘What do we care for a few soldiers? We have a weapon a hundred-fold worse than theirs. They think they kill five of our brethren, but we will have a hundred or five hundred for every one they have murdered.’‘I am an anarchist, and am willing to die for its cause.’ And according to one of the witnesses he ended his harangue with the exclamation: ‘Rise, Anarchy! Long shall it live.’ Grinnell referred to was the prosecuting officer who conducted the prosecution of the Chicago anarchists. Gary was the judge who presided at the trial and sentenced them. The supreme court judges of the state of Illinois were the judges who had affirmed their conviction and sentence. The judges of the supreme court of the United States had denied their application for writs of error and supersedeas. Oglesby was the governor of the state of Illinois who had commuted the sentence of two of the convicted anarchists, and had refused pardon and commutation to five others. At times during the course of the address the audience exhibited by their cheers and appearance great excitement and warm approval of the sentiments he expressed, and when the speaker said, ‘The day of revolution is not far distant,’ one of the audience rose and said excitedly, ‘Why not tonight, for we are ready and prepared?’ During the course of the trial the district attorney sought by offers of evidence (repeatedly made and overruled) to get before the jury the fact that the defendant was the author of a book entitled ‘A Manual of Revolution Warfare,’ and the offers made embraced references to the contents. The conduct of the district attorney is criticized by the defendant's counsel as unfair, and was made a point on the application made to the trial judge for a new trial, which he denied. It is claimed the evidence did not make out the offense charged in the indictment.

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY-EVIDENCE.

Pen. Code N. Y s 451, provides that whenever three or more persons, being assembled, attempt or threaten any act tending towards a breach of the peace, or an injury to person or property, or any unlawful act, such an assembly is unlawful, and every peson participating therein is guilty of a misdemeanor. At a meeting held to protest against the execution of the Chicago anarchists, defendant made a speech in which he glorified their deeds, sympathized with their fate, denounced and threatened with death the officers connected with their case, stated that those present had a more powerful weapon than the officers of the law possessed, and called on them to arm and resist the authorities. The rest of the assembly, by their applause, concurred in his views and adopted his threats. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction, under the statute. Affirming 8 N. Y. Supp. 625.

Wm. F. Howe, for appellant.

Mackenzie Semple, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.

ANDREWS, J., ( after stating the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Eulo
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 1984
    ...definition will be assigned to the term, absent contrary indications (People v. Richards, 108 N.Y. 137, 15 N.E. 371; see People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 113, 27 N.E. 970; cf. Orinoco Realty Co. v. Bandler, 233 N.Y. 24, 134 N.E. 823). In every case, of course, the term must be read in accordan......
  • McClellan v. Owens, 32107.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 18, 1934
    ...and abrogating all disqualification from civil rights on account of such beliefs." The same court had previously said in People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 26 Am. St. Rep. 458, that "The exception to the question put to the witness on cross-examination as to his belief in a Supreme Being is friv......
  • State v. Boloff
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • January 12, 1932
    ...... with Boloff as its dictator. Only an approving vote by the. American people was required, but that approval, evidenced by. the necessary number of votes, is the all-important factor in. changing our form of ... tyrants and should be removed. It was then seen that the. teachings of Emma Goldman, John Most, and other anarchists. who preached the doctrines of that cult were actually capable. of taking effect in the mind of a simple person and ......
  • People v. Biltsted, AP-9
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • July 31, 1991
    ...has generated very little reported caselaw. Whatever cases do exist are far too dated to provide significant guidance (People v. Most, 128 N.Y. 108, 27 N.E. 970 (1891); Slater v. Wood, 9 Bosw. 15 (1861); Michaels v. Hillman, 111 Misc. 284, 181 N.Y.S. 165 (1920); People v. Westfall, 6 A.D.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT