EXTRAORDINARY HEAVY SENTENCE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1274, 30 July 1886, Page 1

EXTRAORDINARY HEAVY SENTENCE.

Benjamin Judge, a well-dressed man, aged 61, was indicted before Mr Justice Wills at tlie Central Criminal Courtr, London, for sending to Mr Arthur Kenrick a letter demanding from him the sum of LSOO, with menaces, and without probable cause. The circumstances under which this charge was preferred were of a remarkable character. The prosecutor in this case is a gentleman of position residing in Warwickshire, and the prisoner and seveud members of his family have been known for many years as dealers in immoral literature, and for which they have been sen* teuced to long periods of imprison* meat. In the year 1883 the prisoner was convicted of this offence, and his case was considered of such an aggra* vated character that he was sentenced by the Court to be imprisoned for two periods of two years each. He served out the first period of two years, and as ho was then in a very bad slate of health the second sen« tence was remitted, and in the year 18S5 lie was set at liberty. It seemed that in carrying out his original disgraceful occupation he sent is all directions, a catalogue of immoral works that could be supplied by him. One of these catalogues was sent to Mr Kenrick, and ho communicated with the solicitor for the Suppression of Vice Society, anti eventually a cheque for J. 4.0 was sent to the pri soner. Ko prosecution, however, appeared to have been instituted in reference to this transaction, although the prosecutor was at all times ready to assist in furthering the ends of juttico. Shortly after his release the prisoner issued circulars to parties who had been former customers of his foul literature, stating that the G'oa vernment had released him from Lis second sentence of two years’ imprisonment on condition that Ls would give information as to the parties who had purchased books from him ; published, in which the names of all such persons would be made public. A letter was sent to the prosecutor to this effect, and demanding LSOO as the price prisoner should expect for keeping his name out of the pamphlet referred to. The prosecutor at once communicated with the police, and steps were taken for the apprehension of the prisoner. In his defence the prisoner endeavored to show that the letter sent to the prosecutor did not cprfiain any threat or menace within theimeaning of the statute. —The jury at emoe returned a verdict of guilty, and Mr Justice Wills, in passing sentence, said that lie considered the prisoner had keen guilty oi ono of the vilest offences that could be committed by any man. He only passed one sentence in such cases, and he sen= tenced him to penal servitude for life.