Commonwealth v. Wilson

• Citation: 30 Pa.Super. 26
• Decision Date: 13 January 1906
• Docket Number: 66-1906
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Wilson, Appellant (No. 1)
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

30 Pa.Super. 26

Commonwealth v. Wilson, Appellant (No. 1)

No. 66-1906

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 13, 1906

Argued October 9, 1905

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Allegheny Co.-1905, No 608, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. James Wilson.

Indictment for extortion at common law. Before McClung, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Defendant presented the following points:

1. That even if the testimony of the commonwealth is believed the defendant is not guilty of extortion as alleged in the indictment. Answer: Refused.

2. That under all the evidence in the case the verdict ought to be for the defendant. Answer: Refused.

5. That where a person desiring to commit an illegal act or enter into an unlawful business voluntarily offers a police officer a sum of money to be permitted to do an illegal act or enter into such illegal business, even if the officer accepts such sum of money, his offense in such case is not extortion; and if the jury believe the facts to be as stated in this point defendant cannot be convicted. Answer: This is true if the facts are just as stated in this point. But if the offer of money is not voluntary, but is induced by the fact that the person is given to understand that money or something of value must be given to secure the noninterference of the defendant, the case is entirely different and you may find extortion. There is no evidence here that this man demanded in terms money from this woman. But if you find that his conduct meant that -- that he gave her to understand that -- that she must give him money or in some way do a favor to him before he would assent to her request, then you may find him guilty as indicted.

Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed.

Errors assigned were above instructions, quoting them.

John S Ferguson, with him W. J. Brennen, for appellant. -- Fear such as will constitute extortion may be induced by a threat to do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual injured: People v. McLaughlin, 2 A.D. 419 (37 N.Y.S. 1005).

Not a single one of these essentials exists in the present case.

John Marron, with him R. E. Stewart, district attorney, and John C. Haymaker, for appellee.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

OPINION

RICE, J.

At the time the offense (extortion at common law) charged in the indictment is alleged to have been committed, the defendant was one of the two captains of police in the city of Allegheny. The lieutenants of police and patrolmen in the several wards of the city were his subordinates, and his immediate superior was the superintendent of police. There was evidence adduced at the trial from which a jury could find that Frances Foley, who had been keeping an assignation house in the city, on April 1, 1904, leased a house on the opposite side of the street, and was desirous of conducting it as a house of prostitution; that she applied to the defendant, whom she had known before his induction into office, for permission to open the house, and he promised to call to see her about it, but failed to do so; that she made several subsequent applications to him, but he put her off from time to time; that finally she sought the intervention of one Mrs. Freshman, whose business was with the prostitutes of that section of the city, whose dwelling and place of business combined the defendant frequently visited, and who, according to her own testimony, was then enjoying protection in her business by reason of favorable intervention of the defendant, for which she had paid him; that she complained to Mrs. Freshman that " all of the rest of the houses are opened and he wouldn't open mine," and at their second interview -- this is the version of Frances Foley -- Mrs. Freshman told her that if she would deposit $ 50.00 with her she would get the house opened or would return the money; that a couple of days later she went to Mrs. Freshman to give her the money and there met the defendant, who said to her, " You look worried, little girl; don't worry," and after he had departed she deposited with Mrs. Freshman $ 50.00 to be given to the defendant " if he would open her house; " that prior to this meeting Mrs. Freshman told the defendant of the wish of Frances Foley " to get her house opened," and in reply the defendant said that he would see her again, and at this or some other interview between them concerning the matter asked whether the Foley woman had any money; that on the same day that the money was deposited with Mrs. Freshman she informed the defendant of the fact, and he directed her to keep it until he should see her again, and to tell Frances Foley that he would see her in a day or so; that in the evening of that same day he called upon Frances Foley and told her " the house was opened" and she could move over, and upon her stating that she would not be ready for a day or two he replied, " Well, whenever it suits you it suits me; " that two or three days afterward he told Mrs. Freshman he had " opened" the house, whereupon she gave him the money which had been deposited with her; that from that time, which was in August, 1904, until March, 1905, when she was arrested under a warrant issued upon an information made by the county detective, she conducted the place as a house of prostitution without molestation on the part of the defendant or his subordinates.

The defendant met these allegations, so far as they were incriminating, by a total denial, and by the legal proposition that even assuming them to be true, his offense was not extortion, although it might be common-law bribery. In support of this claim his counsel cite People v McLaughlin, 2 A.D. 419, (37...