State v. Linthicum

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HENRY
• Citation: State v. Linthicum, 68 Mo. 66 (Mo. 1878)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1878
• Parties: THE STATE, Appellant, v. LINTHICUM.

68 Mo. 66

THE STATE, Appellant,

v.LINTHICUM.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1878.

Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court.--HON. S. A. RICHARDSON, Judge.

Indictment for sending a threatening letter. The statute makes it a felony to send a letter “threatening therein to accuse any person of any crime or felony whatever.” The letter was as follows:

“W. B. PIPER-- Dear Sir: To make things satisfactory between you and me there are some old matters that must be settled, as we cannot get along as we should. That matter of McLay's and that matter in which you and me had a suit once, in which you was the cause of me paying $15.75 costs, besides about $10 to start with, making $25.75 besides the McLay amount.

PIPER: I have at no time ever aimed to misuse you or to speak disrespectful of you, but on the contrary I think you have both with me, and if you expect to have anything more to do with me you must fix this matter satisfactory. It is a well settled fact that I never forget anything of this kind, and never forgive unless the circumstances require it, which is not the case in this. If you think that $25.75, and settle that McLay matter, would be any easier done than to pay five times $40, and probable cost, you probably had better see to it. I don't wish to do anything more than I ought, but I might do even more than this. Don't know as I can do so, but if you want to pay me said amount you can do so, if not just let it alone.”

The defendant moved to quash the indictment, because it did not set forth, by proper innuendo, the meaning of the different passages of the letter, because the letter did not contain any threat to accuse any one of any crime or felony whatever, nor indicate any intent or view to extort or gain any money or property belonging to another, because the indictment did not charge that the defendant threatened to accuse any one of a felony, nor of such infamous crime as would be calculated to put a man of ordinary firmness in fear nor of an offense that is both a crime and a felony.

This motion was sustained by the court, whereupon the State appealed.

J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.

Shanklin, Lowe & McDougal, with whom were Alvord & Fawcett for respondent.

1. SENDING THREATENING LETTER.

HENRY, J.

The indictment specifically charges that by the letter, the defendant threatened to accuse Wm. B. Piper of the crime of selling intoxicating liquors without having a license. The language of the letter is ambiguous, but parol evidence is admissible to explain its contents. People v. Braman, 30 Mich. 463, and cases there cited. Whether it contained the threat alleged was a question for the jury. If it had been written in cipher, we presume that evidence to prove the signification of the characters employed would have been admissible. A contrary doctrine would enable one to violate the statute with impunity, by making his threats in such manner, that however well understood by the parties, other evidence would be necessary to make apparent to other persons...