delivered the opinion of the court.
People v. Avery, 192 Ill. App. 128 (1915)
March 23, 1915
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 20,670
192 Ill. App. 128
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Frank H. Avery, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 20,670.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed March 23, 1915.
*129Statement of the Case.
Prosecution by The People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff, against Frank H. Avery, defendant, on an information signed by David Neuman and verified by his affidavit.
Section 93 of the Criminal Code (J. & A. ¡[ 3647) on which the information is based is, in part, as follows:
“Whoever, either verbally, or by written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of a crime or misdemeanor * * * with intent to extort money, goods, chattels or other valuable thing, or threatens * * * to accuse another of a crime or misdemeanor, * * * though no money, goods, chattels or valuable thing be demanded, shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $500, and imprisoned not exceeding six months.”
The information is in the following language:
“David Neuman * * * gives the Court to be informed and understand that F. H. Avery, heretofore to-wit: on the 6th day of July, A. D. 1914, at the City of Chicago aforesaid, did then and there demand money to the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) from the affiant with menaces and without reason and probable cause and thereby did threaten the affiant that unless the affiant delivered to him, the said F. H. Avery, the aforesaid sum he would cause the affiant to be placed in prison with a view thereby and intent then and there to extort and gain money, contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided,” etc.
Defendant having been found guilty and a fine of five hundred dollars and costs of nine dollars having been imposed, he prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment.
W. E. Cloyes and John J. Whiteside, for plaintiff in error.
Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson and Ernest Langtry, of counsel.
*130Abstract of the Decision.
Extortion, § 3 * —when information insufficient. An Information which charges, in substance, that defendant threatened one N. that unless N. delivered to defendant the sum of one hundred dollars, defendant would cause N. “to be placed in prison,” is not sufficient to charge an offense under Criminal Code, sec. 93, (J. & A. U 3647), which provides that one who “threatens to accuse another of a crime or misdemeanor * * * with intent to extort money” shall ' be punished by fine and imprisonment.