Threatening Letter

Sending threatening letters to persons for the purpose of extorting money is said to be a misdemeanor at common law. 4 Bla. Com. 126. The threat must be of a nature calculated to overcome a firm and prudent man; but this rule has reference to the general nature of the evil threatened, and not to the probable effect of the threat on the mind of the particular party addressed; 1 Den. Cr. Cas. 512. The party who makes a threat may be held to bail for his good behavior. See Com. Dig. Battery (D). By act of congress of Sept. 26, 1888, the sending of any postal card or mall matter with threatening language on the outside thereof is forbidden and made punishable by fine and imprisonment; R. S. 1 Supp. 621. Postal cards held within the act were: One from a creditor threatening to '‘place the claim with our law agency for collection;” U. S. v. Bayle, 40 Fed. 664, 6 L. R. A. 742; demanding payment and threatening to place it in the hands of a lawyer for collection; id.; so of the deposit in the mails of a stamped envelope on the face of which was printed in large red letters: “$1,000 reward will be paid to any person who Kidnaps Ex-Gov. Taylor and returns him to Kentucky authori-. ties;” Warren v. U. S., 183 Fed. 718, 106 C. C. A. 156, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 800; and of letters threatening to accuse certain persons to whom they were sent of crimes and disgraceful matters; U. S. v. Horman, 118 Fed. 780. But a newspaper without a wrapper, though containing scurrilous and defamatory matter marked with blue pencil and so folded as to expose the same, is not nonmailable matter within section 12, Cr. Code; U. S. v. Higgins, 194 Fed. 539. Held not times; U. S. v. Bayle, supra; and notice that rent was due and if not paid would be placed in the hands of an officer; U. S. v. Elliott, 51 Fed. 807. Extraneous evidence is not admissible to show that the language of a postal card on its face threatening or abusive, was not so intended by the sender, and not so understood by the recipient; Griffin v. Pembroke, 2 Mo. App. Repr. 9S0. Statutes exist in many of the states, though they vary somewhat in their provisions, some of them requiring the threatening to have been done “maliciously,” others “knowingly.” The indictment for this offence need not specify the crime threatened to be charged, for the specific nature of the crime which the prisouer intended to charge might intentionally be left in doubt; State v. Morgan, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 262; Biggs v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 547. The threat need not be to accuse before a judicial tribunal; 2 M. & R. 14; People v. Braman, 30 Mich. 460. A person whose property has been stolen has himself no power to punish the thief without process of law, and cannot claim the right to obtain compensation for the loss of his property by maliciously threatening to accuse him of the offence, or to do an injury to his person or property, with intent to extort property from him; State v. Bruce, 24 Me. 71; Com. v. Coolidge, 128 Mass. 55. A mere threat that the prosecutor would be indicted or complained of has been held to be within the statute, even though no distinct crime was spoken of in the letter, because of the likelihood of threatening letters being written with as much disguise and artifice as possible, but still being sufficient to accomplish the purpose intended; State v. Patterson, 68 Me. 473; State v. Linthicum, 68 Mo. 66. See Letter. THREE-D0LLAR PIECE. A gold coin of the United States, of the value of three dollars. The thrce-dollar piece was authgrized by the seventh section of the act of Feb. 21, 1853. 10 Stat. at L. It was of the same fineness as the other gold coins of the United States. The weight of the coin was 77.4 grains. Its coinage was discontinued by act of Sept. 26, 1890. See Legal Tender.