and bidding him to deliver his purse, B. refuse to do so, and then A. pray B. to give or lend him money, and B. does so accordingly, under the influence of fear, the taking by robbery will be complete (1) For where the thief receives money, &c., by the delivery of the party, either while the party is under the terror of an actual assault, or afterwards while the fear of the menaces made use of by the thief continues upon him, such thief may, in the eye of the law, as correctly be said to take the property from the party, as if he had actually taken it out of his pocket. (2)

"L

To obtain money by a mere threat to take a person before the police court for not taking and paying for goods pretended to be sold to her at a mock auction has been held not to amount to robbery. For instance, where the prisoners, assisted by other persons, got the prosecutrix into a house, under pretext of an auction being carried on there, forced her to bid for a lot of articles which was immediately knocked down to her, and then, upon her not producing the money to pay for it, threatened that she should be taken to Bow-street, and from thence to Newgate, and be imprisoned till she could raise the money; and after these threats had been used, a pretended constable was introduced, who said to the prosecutrix, Unless you give me a shilling you must go with me," upon which she was induced to give the pretended constable a shilling, as a means of obtaining her liberty, and to avoid being carried to Bow-street and to Newgate, and not out of fear or apprehension of any other personal force or violence; the judges, after argument, and a minute discussion of the circumstances of the case, were of opinion that they were not sufficient to constitute the crime of robbery. They thought that the threat used of taking the prosecutrix to Bow-street, and from thence to Newgate, was only a threat to put her into the hands of the law, which she might have known would have taken her under its protection and set her free, as she had done no wrong; that an innocent person need not in such a situation be apprehensive of danger; and, therefore, that the terror arising from such a source was not sufficient to induce an individual to part with property, so as to amount to robbery (3)

A similar state of facts would, no doubt, be sufficient to sustain an indictment for conspiracy to defraud, or an indictment under article 404, post, for demanding with menaces, with intent to steal.

Where the defendant decoyed the prosecutor into a house and chained him down to a seat and there compelled him to write orders for the payment of money and for the delivery of deeds, the paper on which he wrote remaining in his hands half an hour but he was chained all the time, it was held (before the 24 and 25 Vict., c. 96, sec. 48), that it was not an assault with intent to rob. (4) Such cases as this are now covered by the Imperial statute; and they come under our article 402, post.

It seems that the fear of violence to the person of a child of the party from whom property is demanded will fall within the same consideration as if the fear were of violence to the person of the party himself; and so where the case was put of a man taking another's child and threatening to destroy him, unless the other would give him money, Hotham, B. said he had no doubt that this would be robbery (5). And, Eyre, C. J. expressed the same opinion in the case of R. v. Reane. In that case James Reane was indicted for a highway robbery, and David Watkins was charged, as an accessory before the fact. The prosecutor on the 12th of May, 1794, met the prisoner, Reane, in the street He was an entire stranger to the prosecutor; but he asked for money, and, upon the prosecutor's refusing to give him any, went away muttering expressions of anger. Next day he again met the prosecutor, and repeated his request for money; and, on being refused said, "You shall be the worse for it." On the 23rd of May, he again accosted the prosecutor, and told him that he had taken

(1) 1 Hale 533.

(2) 2 East P. C. 711, 714.

(3) R. v. Knewland, ? Leach, 721; R. v. Wood, 2 East, P. C 732.

See, also, article 406, post.

(4) R. v. Edwards, 6 C. & P. 521.

(5) R. v. Donolly, 2 East, P. C. 715, 718.

indecent liberties with him in the park, and that it had been seen and could be proved by a third person. The prosecutor, with a violent exclamation, asked him what he meant; to which he made no reply, but walked away. On the next day the prosecutor received a letter from him containing similar charges; and having consulted with a friend, he made an appointment with and met Reane, who said, that if the prosecutor did not give him money he could prove his indecencies with him as a third person had seen it; upon which the other prisoner, Watkins, said: “ Yes, I saw you." The prosecutor exclaimed, that it was a horrid abominable falsity.

On the following morning Reane met the prosecutor, and told him he must have twenty pounds in cash, and a bond for fifty pounds a-year; upon which the prosecutor, in pursuance of a plan previously concerted with his friend, told Reane that if he would wait a few days he would bring him the money and the bond. The prosecutor afterwards gave the bond together with nineteen guineas and a shilling, to Reane, who carried both bond and money away with him, saying he would give the prosecutor no further trouble. It was objected for the prisoners that this proof was defective; as, in order to constitute robbery there must be a violence, or fear of danger, as to the person or character, existing when the property is parted with; but the case was left to the jury, who found the prisoners guilty; upon which the opinion of the twelve judges was taken. Eyre, C. J., observed, "That it would be going a step further than any of the cases to hold this to be robbery. That the principle of robbery was violence; and where the money was delivered through fear, that was constructive violence. That the principle he had acted upon, in such cases, was to leave the question to the jury, whether the defendant had, by certain circumstances, impressed such a terror on the prosecutor as to render him incapable of resisting the demand. Therefore, when the prosecutor swore as he had done that he was under no apprehension at the time, but gave his money only to convict the prisoners, he negatived the robbery. A man might be said to take by violence who deprived the other of the power of resistance, by whatever means he did it. And he saw no sensible distinction between a personal violence to the party himself, and the case put by one of the judges of a man holding another's child over a river, and threatening to throw it in unless he gave him money." The judges held that the conviction was wrong; as there was no violence either actual or constructive, at the time the prosecutor parted with the money. (1) Cases like Reane's are covered by article 405, post.

The cases in which the offence of robbery has been committed by threats or fear of injury to the property of the party are principally those in which the fear excited was of the probable outrages of a mob.

A., the ringleader in some riots amongst the tinners of Cornwall went with about seventy others to the house of B, and said they would have from him the same as they had got from his neighbors, namely a guinea, or they would tear his mow of corn and level his house. B gave them a crown to appease them, when A swore that he would have five shillings more, which B, being terrified, gave him. They then opened a cask of cider by force, drank part of it, and ate B's bread and cheese; and A carried away a piece. This was held to be robbery. (2)

If a mob go to a person's house, and civilly ask and advise him to give them something, if this be not done bond fide, but as a mere mode of robbing him, the offence is robbery; and evidence of demands of money, made by the same mob on the ame day, at other houses, is admissible, to show that this was not done bona fide. On an indictment for robbery, it appeared that the prisoners went with a mob to the prosecutor's house, and that one of the mob very civilly, and, as the prosecutor then thought, with a good intention, advised him to give them something to get rid of them, and to prevent mischief, and that in consequence of this, he gave them the money stated in the indictment. To show that this was not bona fide advice, but in reality a mere mode of robbing the prosecutor, it was proposed to give evidence of other demands of money made

(1) R. v. Reane, 2 East, P. C. 735, 736.

(2) R. v. Simons, 2 East, P. C. 731.

by the same mob at other houses, at different times of the same day, when some of the prisoners were present; it was objected that the fact, that money had been demanded at other places would be no proof of any demand made on the prosecutor; and that this was, in effect, trying the prisoners upon other charges which they could not be prepared to meet. But it was held, by Parke, J., (after consulting Vaughan, B., and Alderson, J.,), that what was done before and after the particular transaction at the prosecutor's house, but in the course of the same day, and when the prisoners were present, might be given in evidence. (1)

In Spencer's case, corn was taken from the prosecutor by the prisoner, and a mob who accompanied him, compelling the prosecutor to sell it under its value, by a threat that if he would not sell it at the sum offered, it should be taken away. The prosecutor had corn belonging to other persons in his possession when the prisoner came to him, together with a great mob marching in military order. One of the mob said, that if he would not sell they were going to take it away; and the prisoner said that they would give thirty shillings a load, and if he would not take that, they would take the corn away; upon which the prosecutor sold corn for thirty shillings which was worth thirty-eight shillings. This was ruled to be robbery, and the prisoner was convicted, and executed. (2)

In a case arising out of the London riots in 1780, the prosecutor swore at the trial that the prisoner and another man entered into his dwelling-house; and, upon being asked by him what they wanted, the prisoner, having a drawn sword in his hand, said with an oath, "Put one shilling into my hat, or I have a party that can destroy your house presently;" upon which he gave him a shilling. It was also sworn by another witness, that the prisoner also said, that if the prosecutor "would keep the blood within his mouth, he must give the shilling." This offence was also holden to be robbery. (3)

In another case against the London rioters of 1780, it appeared that a boy with a cockade in his hat knocked violently at the prosecutor's door, who thereupon opened it, when the boy said to him, "God bless your honour, remember the poor mob." The prosecutor told him to go along; on which he said, "Then I will go and fetch my captain," and went away; but soon afterwards the mob, to the number of a hundred, armed with sticks, and such other things as they had been able to procure, came, headed by the prisoner, who was on horseback, and whose horse was led by the same boy. On their coming up, the by-standers said, "You must give them money," and the boy said, Now, I have brought my captain; " and some of the mob said, God bless this gentleman, he is always generous." The 'prosecutor then said to the prisoner, "How much?" to which the prisoner answered," Half a crown, sir; upon which the prose cutor, who had before only intended to give a shilling, gave the prisoner half-acrown. The mob then gave three cheers, and went to the next house. This was holden to be robbery (4)

44

During some riots in Birmingham A threatened B. that unless he would give him a certain sum of money he should return with the mob and destroy his house. B., under the impression of this threat gave A. the money. Held by the judges to be robbery. (5)

401. Stopping the mail.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, or for any term not less than five years, who stops a mail with intent to rob or search the same. R.S.C., c. 35, s. 81.

(1) R. v. Winkworth, 4 C. & P. 444.

(2) R. v. Spencer, 2 East P. C. 712, 713.

(3) R. v. Brown, 2 East P. C 731.

See article 4, ante, p. 7. for definition of mail."

44

The property in any mailable matter may be laid in the Postmaster General, (See article 624, post.)

(4) R. v. Taplin, 2 East P. C. 712. (5) R. v. Astley, 2 East P. C. 720.

As to receiving stolen post letters, etc. See article 315 ante, and as to stealing post letter bags, post letters and other mailable matter, etc., see articles 326, 327, and 328, ante.

402, Compelling Execution of Documents by force.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who, with intent to defraud, or injure, by unlawful violence to, or restraint of the person of another, or by the threat that either the offender or any other person will employ such violence or restraint, unlawfully compels any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security, or to write, impress or affix any name or seal upon any paper or parchment, in order that it may be afterwards made or converted into or used or dealt with as a valuable security. R.S.C., c. 173, s. 5.

The provision contained in this article, 402, meets such cases as R. v. Phipoe, in which it was held that where one person compelled another, by threats, to sign a promissory note it was no robbery, the note being of no value to the party. signing it. (1)

Under sec. 48 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, (which is to the same effect as the above article 402), the defendants in the case of R. v. John, were indicted for having, by threats of violence and restraint, induced the prosecutor to write and sign the following document :

44

London, July 19th. 1875.

66

I hereby agree to pay you £100 sterling on the 27th inst. to prevent any action against me."

Held that the document was a valuable security. (2)

See articles 405, and 406 post.

403. Threatening Letters.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment who sends, delivers or utters, or directly or indirectly causes to be received, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing demanding of any person with menaces, and without any reasonable or probable cause, any property, chattel, money, valuable security or other valuable thing. R.S.Č., c. 173, s. 1.

See article 3 (aa), (ee) for definitions of "valuable security" and " writing," p.p. 6 and 7, ante.

Article 403 is to the same effect as the Imperial statute, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 44. Under this article it will be sufficient evidence of the sending or causing to be received to prove that the defendant placed the letter in a place where he knew the prosecutor would come, and that it thus reached him, or that it was there picked up by another person and by him delivered to the prosecutor; (3) or that the letter is in the defendant's handwriting and came to the prosecutor through the post. (4)

Where the prosecutor, having received such a letter, traced it to a woman who was in the habit of going errands for prisoners in Newgate, and she proved

(1) R. v. Phipoe, 2 Leach, 673: 2 East P. C. 599. See R. v. Edwards, 6 C. & P. 515, 521; R. v. Smith, 2 Den. 449; 21 L. J. (M. C.) 111. Arch. Cr. Pl. & Ev. 21 Ed 479.

(2) R. v. John, 13 Cox. 100, Brett, J.

(3) R. v. Lloyd, 2 East, P. C. 1122; R. v. Wagstaff, R. & R. 308.

(4) R. v. Hemming 2 East, P. C. 1116: R. v. Jepson, 2 East, P. C. 1115.

that she received it from the defendant then a prisoner in Newgate with instructions to post it, and the post office employee proved that the letter in question was brought to the office by the woman, and forwarded in the regular course, the evidence was held sufficient not only of the sending by the defendant but also that he knew its contents. (1) Sending a letter to A., in order that he may deliver it to B., is a sending to B., if the letter is delivered by A. to B. (2) And the leaving of a letter, directed to A., near A's house, with the intention that it should not only reach A. but B. also, was held to be a sending of it to B., by whom it was afterwards seen. (3)

Where the letter contained a 'request only, but intimated that if it were not complied with, the writer would publish a certain libel then in his possession accusing the prosecutor of murder, it was held to amount to a demand. (4)

As to extortion by threatening to publish a libel, see article 300, ante.

The demand must be with menaces and without reasonable or probable cause, and it will be for the jury to consider whether the letter does expressly or impliedly contain a demand of this description. The words “ without any reasonable or probable cause" apply to the demand for money, and not to the threatened accusation to be made against the prosecutor; and therefore it is immaterial in point of law whether the threatened accusation be true or not. (5)

An anonymous letter intimating that some persons had conspired to burn or otherwise destroy the prosecutor's property, and offering to make a disclosure, if £30 were placed for the writer in a certain spot, was held not to be within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 8, as it did not contain any menace, although its contents might create some apprehension in the owner's mind The indictment charged the prisoner with sending the following letter to Mr. Young, demanding money, with menaces :

"As you are a gentleman and highly respected by all who know you, I think it my duty to inform you of a conspiracy. There is a few young men who have agreed among themselves to take from you personally a sum of money, or injure your property. I have overheard all the affair. I mean to say, your building property, in the manner they have planned this dreadful undertaking, would be a most serious loss. They have agreed to commence this upon an appointed time in the course of this winter, which would be a most dreadful sight. Sir, I could give every particular information how you may preserve your property and your person, and how to direct and secure the offenders Sir, if you will lay me a purse of thirty sovereigns upon the garden edge, close to Mr Tatler's garden gate, I will leave a letter in the place to inform you of the night this is to take place. I can also inform you how you could be sure to secure the offenders; but you must keep all this quite secret, and not make a talk of it, as it would come to their ears, and then they would put it off to another time. Sir, I hope you will not attempt to seize upon me, when I come to take up the money and lay down the note of information. Sir, you will find I am doing you a most serious favour. You will please excuse me in not describing my name, but I will make myself known the day after you have taken them, and be a witness against them. I shall come to lay down my letter on the 1st of December if I find the money. Sir, I am your unknown friend."

It appeared that the prisoner had written the letter, as a mere device to get the thirty sovereigns and leave the country. For the prosecution it was contended that the letter contained a sufficient demand of money, as the request was accompanied by a condition, namely, to discover persons going to do a certain act, and Robinson's case (6) was cited. And, with respect to the mena

(1) R. v. Girdwood, 2 East, P. C. 1120; 1 Leach, 142.

(2) R. v. Paddle, R. & R. 484.

(3) R. v. Grimwade, 1 Den. 30; 1 C. & K. 592.

(4) R. v. Robinson, 2 Leach, 749; 2 East P. C. 1110.

(5) R. v. Hamilton, 1 C. & K. 212; R. v. Gardner, C & P. 479.

(6) See R. v. Robinson, ante.