Commonwealth v. Moulton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 160, § 28, averring that George H. Moulton and Margaret Moulton on February 23, 1871, at Georgetown, “ maliciously and verbally did threaten one Hosea C. Killam to accuse said Killam of having committed the crime of adultery with Antoinette M. Hazen, wife of Nathan T. Ha-zen, with a view and with the intent to extort money from the said Kiilam.”
Read the full summary
Indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 160, § 28, averring that George H. Moulton and Margaret Moulton on February 23, 1871, at Georgetown, “ maliciously and verbally did threaten one Hosea C. Killam to accuse said Killam of having committed the crime of adultery with Antoinette M. Hazen, wife of Nathan T. Ha-zen, with a view and with the intent to extort money from the said Kiilam.” Before the jury were empanelled in the superior court, the defendants moved to quash the indictment, because it did not set forth the language of the threats, and because it did not aver that the defendants intended…
1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.
1. This indictment is for attempting to extort money
by the threat of a criminal accusation. Gen. Sts. c. 160, § 28. It was moved to quash it, because the language in which the alleged verbal threat was made is not set forth. But it is charged that the threatened accusation was, of having committed the crime of adultery with a certain person whose name is given. This is sufficient. The precise words of the threat need not be set out. It is enough if the substance is stated. If the indictment attempted to give the words used, yet it would only be necessary to prove the allegation substantially.…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wallace v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1899
- State v. LewisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Commonwealth v. GoodwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Glover v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- Lee v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.