BLACKMAILING EDITORS.

Evening Star, Issue 10213, 15 January 1897, Page 4

BLACKMAILING EDITORS.

HUGE DEMANDS FOR MONEY,

At Guildhall, before Mr Alderman Davies, M.P., James Herbert Farmer, thirty-three, a solicitor, 28 Austin-friars, residing at 21 Trognal, Hampstead ; Julius Jacobs, fortyeight, and Morris Berlyn Jacobs, twentytwo, both described as editors, residing together at Yilgarn, Drayton Park, N., were charged, on remand, with conspiring together, between November 3 and 16, to obtain money and shares to the amount of £16,000, by proposing to abstain from publishing certain libels concerning Marcus Bebro.

Mr Abinger prosecuted ; Mr Cock, Q C., and Mr Travers Humphrey appeared for Farmer ; Mr Charles Mathews and Mr Arthur Osborn were for the two Jacobs; Mr E. Beall watched the case on behalf of part ies interested.

Mr Abinger, in opening the case-, submitted that the two journals of the defendants Jacobs —the ‘Financial Who’s Who 1 and the ‘ Golden Age ’ —existed for the sole object of publislung libels upon people in the oily, for the purpose of obtaining money to abstain from publishing further attacks. These papers were not sold by respectable newsvendors, but in the streets by men in the employ of the Jacobs. Posters accompanied the issue of each paper, displaying the figure of the person who was being libelled on that occasion. In ‘ Who's' Who ’ was an announcement that if intending investors in companies would send them (Jacobs) their application forms, with 2s 6J and cheque, they Would advise them whether to put in the application or not. If not, they agreed to send them back the cheque—thus, it appeared, placing the company at their mercy. He believed it woold be shown that the Jacobs knew that Mr Bebro was interested in the promotion of a company called the Bechuanaland Diamond Fields, with a capital of a million and a-half sterling. On November 4, when Mr Bebro was supposed to be in town, in the ‘ Financial Who’s Who ’ his name appeared in large type on the outside, and there was a reference to p. 202. The article which the paper contained he ventured to describe as grossly libellous. B-joro was described as the “shadiest of the shady,” and the article promised that in the next issue would be published the life and adventures of Bebro, as told by himself. The object of the article was to bring Bebro to his knees, and to pay the Jacobs any sum they should fix to keep his name out of their paper, and not to injure the company. On November 6, Farmer appeared for the first time on the scene. He appeared to know young Bebro (who was twenty years of age), and in the course of the day telephoned to him : “ 1 suppose you have seen * Who’s Who’ ?” He said. ; “I know the Jacobs. They are the proprietors of ‘ Who’s Who.’ I think it is a shame; but they can be squared. They will want to be paid well. Hadn’t yon better come round and see me, and I will take you to see them?” The learned counsel then detailed the facts of Mr Lionel Bebro’s interviews with the defendant Farmer. At one interview Farmer said he thought his clients would accept £I,OOO in cash and £15,000 in shares of the Bechuanaland Company. Upon this Mr Bebro, jun., said he would like to consult his solicitor, as it was a great shame to blackmail his

father like that. Later on Farmer showed

Lionel Bebro the draft agreement, saying “ They don’t think £16,000 is enough. It is little more than they are getting from the other side.” Mr Bebro asked Farmer to show the documents to his solicitors, Messrs Aldridge and Ginnery. Farmer went to the office of Messrs Aldridge, and the draft agreement was produced, in which the Jacobs undertook to abstain from libelling Mr Bebro, or to attack any companies in which he was concerned, in consideration of a sum of £I,OOO being paid, and shares to the value of £15,000 in the Bechuanaland Company being allotted to them. Farmer wrote an addition to this document to the effect that it was to remain in his custody. This (said Mr Abinger) was most unprecedented conduct on the port of a solicitor. The next issue of the Jacobs’

paper did not mention Mr Bebro. Why? Clearly (remarked learned counsel) because, . so far as the Jacobs could see, the scheme was successful. On the 12th Farmer telephoned for Mr Bebro, aud in the evening Mr Bebro called on him. Farmer told him that be could not gel the Jacobs to sign the agreement. Eventually Bebro, with Farmer, called at the Jacobs’ office. Julius Jacobs said : “ If you don’t square me look out for the consequences.” Bebro asked him if he would sign a letter. He replied: “ I’ve been too long' at this game to be caught napping. I will send a letter to Farmer provided you are not to have possession of it.” Mr Abinger then went on to describe bow a cheque for £SOO as first instalment was banded to Jacobs, who, on finding it dishonored, in his /age sent for a constable, aud gave Mr Bebro into custody for “ attempting to bribe them,” bat the police inspector refused to charge him. Later on, the warrants having Iron granted, the three prisoners were ap-

Pr ....I i»y >Kpeoto..‘ 0 .. r.ad Di 'lies. , M r Lionel Samuelson Bebto n, Ve eV|dnr>c« bearing on*- counsel’s statement) and was still under examination When Alderman Davies decided to adjourn the case) expressing his willingness to admit the defendants to bail, themselves in £2,000 each and two sureties of SI,OOO each. Detective-inspector Downes said he was satisfied With the names submitted by Farmed. Bail for that defendant was therefore Justified. The twp Jacobs were removed in custody.