Proof of the putting in fear-fear of injury to property.] It is sufficient to prove that the conduct of the prisoner put the prosecutor in fear for the safety of his property. During certain riots in Cornwall, the prisoners, with a mob, came to the prosecutor's house, and said they must have from him the same they had had from his neighbors, which was a guinea, else that they would tear down his mow of corn, and level his house. The prosecutor gave them 5s., but they demanded and received 58. more, he being terrified. They then opened a cask of cider, and drank part of it, eat some bread and cheese, and the prisoners carried away a piece of meat. The prisoners were indicted and convicted of robbing the prosecutor of 10s. There was also another count for putting the prosecutor in fear, and taking from him, in his dwelling-house, a quantity of cider, &c., and it was held robbery in the dwelling-house. Simons's case, 2 East, P. C. 731. During the Birmingham riots, the mob entered the house, and the prisoner, who was one of them, demanded money, and said, that if the prosecutor did not give his men something handsome for them to drink, his house must come down. The jury found that the prosecutor did not deliver his money from any apprehension of danger to his life or person, but from an apprehension, that if he refused, his house would at some future time be pulled down in the same manner as other houses in Birmingham. On a case reserved, a majority of the judges held this to be robbery. Astley's case, 2 East, P. C. 729. See also Brown's case, 2 East, P. C. 731; Spencer's case, 2 East, P. C. 712, ante, p. 836.

Proof of being put in fear-fear of injury to reputation.] There appears to be only one case in which the fear of an injury to the party's reputation, has been allowed to raise the offence of larceny from the person to robbery, viz. where the prisoner has threatened to accuse the prosecutor of unnatural practices. The species of terror, says Mr. Justice Ashurst, which leads a man to apprehend an injury to his character, has never been deemed sufficient, unless in the particular case of exciting it by means of insinuations against, or threats to destroy the character of the party pillaged, by accusing him of sodomitical practices. Knewland's case, 2 Leach, 730. The rule is laid down in the same case, in rather larger terms, by Mr. Justice Heath, who says, "The cases alluded to (Donnally's case, and Hickman's case, infra,) only go thus far-that to obtain money from a person by accusing him of that which, if proved, would *carry with it an infamous punishment, is sufficient to [*839 ] support an indictment for robbery; but it has never been decided that a mere charge of imprisonment and extortion is sufficient. 2 Leach, 729.

That obtaining money from a man by threatening to accuse him of unnatural practices amounts to a robbery was decided in Jones's case. The prisoner, drinking with the prosecutor at a public house, asked him what he meant by the liberties he had taken with his person at the play-house? The prosecutor replied, that he knew of no liberties having been taken; upon which the prisoner said, "Damn you, sir, but you did, and there were several reputable merchants in the house who will take their oaths of it." The prisoner being alarmed, left the house, but the prosecutor following him, cried out, "Damn you, sir, stop, for if you offer to run, I will raise a mob about you;" and seizing him by the collar, continued, " Damn you, sir, this is not to be borne, you have offered an indignity to me, and nothing can satisfy it." The prosecutor said, " For God's sake, what

would you have?" To which the prisoner answered, "A present; you must make me a present." And the prosecutor gave him three guineas and twelve shillings. The prisoner, during the whole conversation, held the prosecutor by the arm. The prosecutor swore, that at the time he parted with the money, he understood the threatened charge to be an imputation of sodomy; that he was so alarmed at the idea, that he had neither courage nor strength to call for assistance, and that the violence with which the prisoner had detained him in the street, had put him in fear for the safety of his person. Upon a case reserved, the judges (absent De Grey, C. J., and Ashurst, J., and one vacancy), were of opinion, that although the money had been obtained in a fraudulent way, and under a false pretence, yet, that it was a pretence of a very alarming nature, and that a sufficient degree of force had been made use of in effecting it to constitute the offence of robbery. According to the report of the same case by Mr. East, their lordships said, that to constitute robbery there was no occasion to use weapons or real violence, but that taking money from a man in such a situation as rendered him not a free man, as if a person so robbed were in fear of a conspiracy against his life or character, was such a putting in fear as would make the taking of his money under that terror a robbery, and they referred to Brown's case, (O. B. 1763); Jones's case, I Leach, 139; 2 East, P. C. 714.

In the above case, it does not clearly appear whether the judges held it to be robbery, on the ground of the actual violence offered to the prosecutor in detaining him in the street by the arm, or upon the prosecutor being put in fear of an injury to his reputation by the menaces employed. However, in subsequent cases it has been held, that it is no less robbery where no personal violence whatever has been used.

The prosecutor, passing along the street, was accosted by the prisoner, who desired he would give him a present. The prosecutor asking, for [*840] what? the prisoner said, "You had better comply, or I *will take you before a magistrate, and accuse you of an attempt to commit an unnatural crime." The prosecutor then gave him half a guinea. Two days afterwards the prisoner obtained a further sum of money from the prosecutor by similar threats. The prosecutor swore that he was exceedingly alarmed upon both occasions, and under that alarm gave the money; that he was not aware what were the consequences of such a charge; but apprehended that it might cost him his life. The jury found the prisoner guilty of the robbery, and that the prosecutor delivered his money through fear, and under an apprehension that his life was in danger. The case being reserved for the opinion of the judges, they gave their opinions seriatim, (see 2 East, P. C. 716,) and afterwards the result of their deliberations was delivered by Mr. Justice Willes. They unanimously resolved, that the prisoner was rightly convicted of robbery. This, says Mr. Justice Willes, is a threat of personal violence, for the prosecutor had every reason to believe that he should be dragged through the streets as a culprit, charged with an unnatural crime. The threat must necessarily and unavoidably create intimidation. It is equivalent to actual violence, for no violence that can be offered could excite a greater terror in the mind, or make a man sooner part with his money. Donnally's case, 1 Leach, 193; 2 East, P. C. 713.

It will be observed, that in the foregoing case, the jury found that the prosecutor delivered the money under an apprehension that his life was in

danger, but this circumstance was wanting in the following case, where the only fear was, that of an injury to the party's reputation.

The prosecutor was employed in St. James's Palace, and the prisoner was a sentinel on guard there. One night the prosecutor treated the prisoner with something to eat in his room. About a fortnight afterwards the prisoner followed the prosecutor up stairs, and said, "I am come for satisfaction, you know what passed the other night. You are a sodomite, and if you do not give me satisfaction, I will go and fetch a sergeant and a file of men, and take you before a justice, for I have been in the black hole ever since I was here last, and I do not value my life." The prosecutor asked him what money he must have, and he said three or four guineas, and the prosecutor gave him two guineas. The prisoner took them, saying, "Mind, I don't demand any thing of you." The prosecutor swore that he was very much alarmed when he gave the two guineas, and that he did not very well know what he did, but that he parted with the money under an idea of preserving his character from reproach, and not from the fear of personal violence. The jury found the prisoner guilty of the robbery, and they also found that the prosecutor parted with the money against his will, through a fear that his character might receive an injury from the prisoner's accusation. The case, being only the second of the kind, (sed vide Jones's case, ante, p. 839,) and some doubt having prevailed with regard to Donnally's case, because he had not been executed, and because this case differed with regard to the nature of the [*841] fear, it was reserved for the opinion of the judges. Their resolution was delivered by Mr. Justice Ashurst, who said, that the case did not materially differ from that of Donnally, for that the true definition of robbery is, the stealing, or taking from the person, or in the presence of another, property of any amount, with such a degree of force or terror as to induce the party unwillingly to part with his property; and whether the terror arises from real or expected violence to the person, or from a sense of injury to the character, the law makes no kind of difference; for to most men the idea of losing their fame and reputation is equally, if not more, terrific than the dread of personal injury. The principal ingredient in robbery is a man's being forced to part with his property; and the judges were unanimously of opinion, that upon the principles of law, and the authority of former decisions, a threat to accuse a man of having committed the greatest of all crimes, was a sufficient force to constitute the crime of robbery by putting in fear. Hickman's case, 1 Leach, 278. 2 East, P. C. 728.

This decision was followed in a recent case. The prisoner came up to the prosecutor, a gentleman's servant, at his master's door, and demanded £5. On being told by the prosecutor, that he had not so much money, he demanded £1 and said, that if the prosecutor did not instantly give it to him, he would go to his master, and accuse him of wanting to take diabolical liberties with him. The prosecutor gave him what money he had, and the prisoner demanded his watch, or some of his master's plate. This the prosecutor refused, but went and fetched one of his coats, which the prisoner took away. He was indicted for robbing the prosecutor of his coat. The prosecutor swore that he gave the prisoner his property, under the idea of his being charged with a detestable crime, and for fear of losing both his character and his place. He stated that he was not afraid of being taken into custody, nor had he any dread of punishment.

He stated also that he was absent fetching the coat, for five minutes; that the servants were in the kitchen, but he did not consult them on account of his agitation, and because he had not a minute to spare, expecting the company to dinner immediately. On a case reserved, eleven of the judges thought the case similar to Hickman's (supra), and that they could not, with propriety, depart from that decision. Graham, B., thought that Hickman's case was not rightly decided, but said, that he should on this point be influenced in future by what appeared to be the general opinion of the judges. Egerton's case, Russ. and Ry. 375 (a).

Upon a threat of accusing the prosecutor of unnatural practices, he promised to provide a sum of money for the prisoners, which he failed to do, upon which they said they were come from Bow-street, and would take him into custody. They accordingly called a coach, and while on their road to Bow-street, one of the prisoners stopped the coach, and said that if the prosecutor would behave like a gentleman, and procure the money, they would not prefer the charge. The prosecutor then went to [*842] the house of a friend, *where he was absent about five minutes, when he returned with £10 which he gave to the prisoners. He stated that he parted with his money in the fear and dread of being placed in the situation of a criminal of that nature, had they persisted in preferring the charge against him: that he did not conceive they were Bow-street officers, though they held out the threat; that he was extremely agitated, and thought that they would have taken him to the watch-house, and under that idea, and the impulse of the moment, he parted with the money. He stated also, that he could not say that he gave his money under any apprehension of danger to his person.

In a case of this kind, where the point of violence was in question, ten of the judges were of opinion that the calling a coach, and getting in with the prosecutor was a forcible constraint upon him, and sufficient to constitute a robbery, though the prosecutor had no apprehension of further injury to his person. Lord Ellenborough, Macdonald, C. B., Lawrence, J., Cambre, J., and Graham, B., thought some degree of force or violence essential, and that the mere apprehension of danger to the character would not be sufficient to constitute this offence. Heath, J., Grose, J., Thomson, B., Le Blanc, J., 'and Wood, B., seemed to think it would. Cannon's case, Russ. and Ry. 146 (b).

The threat in these cases must be a threat to accuse the party robbed ; it is not sufficient to constitute robbery that the threat is to accuse another person, however nearly connected with the party from whom the property is obtained. The prisoner was indicted for robbing the wife of P. Abraham. It appeared that under a threat of accusing Abraham of an indecent assault, the money had been obtained, by the prisoner, from Abraham's wife. Littledale, J., said, "I think this is not such a personal fear in the wife, as is necessary to constitute the crime of robbery. If I were to hold this a robbery, it would be going beyond any of the decided cases;" and his lordship directed an acquittal. He said that the case was new and perplexing. He thought it was rather a misdemeanor, and even as a misdemeanor the case was new. The principle was, that the person threatened is thrown off his guard, and had not firmness to resist the extortion, but he could not apply that principle to the wife of the par

(a) 1 Eng. C. C. 375. (b) Id. 146.

ty threatened. Edward's case, 1 Moody and Rob. 257; 5 C. and P. 518 (a).

Where the fear, in cases of this nature, is not so much of injury to the reputation, as of some other loss, it seems doubtful how far it will be considered robbery. The prisoner went twice to the house where the prosecutor lived in service, and called him a sodomite. The prosecutor took him each time before a magistrate, who discharged him. On being discharged, the prisoner followed the prosecutor, repeated the expressions, and asked him to make him a present, saying, he would never leave him till he had pulled the house down, but if he did make him a handsome present, he would trouble him no more. He mentioned four guineas, and the prosecutor being frightened for his reputation, and in fear of losing his situation, gave him the money. He gave the money from the great *apprehension and fear he had of losing his situation. The [*843 ] prisoner was convicted, but a doubt arising in the Privy Council, the opinion of the judges was taken. Most of them thought that this was within Hickman's case, and nine were of opinion that that case was law, but the three others thought it not law. Lord Ellenborough thought that the prosecutor's principal inducement to part with his money was the fear of the loss of his place, and he said he should feel no difficulty in recommending a pardon; and the prisoner did, in the end, receive a pardon. Elmstead's case, 2 Russell, 86.

In these, as in other cases of robbery, it must appear that the property was delivered, or the money extorted, while the party was under the influence of the fear arising from the threats or violence of the prisoner. The prosecutor had been several times solicited for money by the prisoner, under threats of accusing him of unnatural practices. At one of those interviews the prisoner said he must have 20l. in cash, and a bond for 50l. a-year, upon which the prosecutor, in pursuance of a plan he had previously concerted with a friend, told him that he could not give them to him then, but that if he would wait a few days he would bring him the money and bond. At their next interview, the prosecutor offered the prisoner 201., but he refused to take it without the bond, upon which the prosecutor fetched it, and gave it, with nineteen guineas and a shilling, to the prisoner, who took them away, saying, he would not give the prosecutor any further trouble. The prosecutor deposed that when the charge was first made, his mind was extremely alarmed, and that he apprehended injury to his person and character, but that his fear soon subsided, and that he sought the several interviews with the prisoner for the purpose of parting with his property to him, in order to fix him with the crime of robbery, and to substantiate the fact of his having extorted money from him by means of the charge; but that at the time the prisoner demanded from him the money and the bond, he parted with them without being under any apprehension, either of violence to his person, or injury to his character, although he could not say that he parted with his property voluntarily. The judges having met to consider this case, were inclined to be of opinion that it was no robbery, there being neither violence nor fear, at the time when the prosecutor parted with his money. Eyre, C. J., observed, that it would be going a step further than any of the cases, to hold this to be robbery. The principle of robbery was violence;

(a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxiv. 435.