spiracy to do any act that is criminal per se, whether a felony or misdemeanor, is an indictable offense at common law.'

The thing contemplated, must be in its very nature specially adapted to injure some person or the public generally, by reason of the concert of the parties, or it must be the subject of indictment if done by one person.'

Among others may be instanced acts necessarily collective, as unlawful assembly; and a fraudulent knock down at auction; also certain frauds or perversion of justice; and combined con'Reg. v. Vincent, 9 Car. & P. 91; Com. v. Crowninshield, 10 Pick. 497; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 265; Com. v. Kingsbury, 5 Mass. 106; Com. v. O'Brien, 12 Cush. 84; State v. Allen, 47 Conn. 121; State v. Shields, 45 Conn. 256; State v. Grady, 34 Conn. 118; State v. Buchanan, 5 Harr. & J. 317; Hazen v. Com. 23 Pa. 355; Com. v. Kostenbauder (Pa.) 3 Cent. Rep. 632; Frank v. State, 27 Ala. 37; Solander v. People, 2 Colo. 48; Doghead Glory v. State, 13 Ark. 236; State v. Stewart, 4 New Eng. Rep. 378, 59 Vt. 273; People v. Woody, 45 Cal. 289; Brennan v. People, 15 Ill. 511; Com. v. Demain, Brightly, 441; State v. Glidden, 3 New Eng. Rep. 849, 55 Conn. 46; United States v. Johnson, 26 Fed. Rep. 682; People v. Leith, 52 Cal. 251; Lamb v. People. 96 Ill. 73; State v. Sterling, 34 Iowa, 443; Alderman v. People, 4 Mich. 414; Archer v. State, 4 West. Rep. 726, 106 Ind. 426; Williams v. State, 47 Ind. 568; State v. Dean, 35 N. C. 63; Jones v. State, 64 Ind. 475; State v. McKinstry, 50 Ind. 465; State v. Nash, 7 Iowa, 347; Cummins v. Com. 81 Ky. 465; State v. Torn, 13 N. C. 569; Rufer v. State, 25 Ohio St. 465; State v. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500; State v. Dean, 35 N. C. 63; Walton v. State, 88 Ind. 9; State v. Murray, 15 Me. 100; Scudder v. State, 62 Ind. 13; Brown v. State, 2 Tex. App. 115; State v. Winner, 17 Kan. 305; Carrington v. People, 6 Park. Crim. Rep. 336; State v. George, 29 N. C. 321; State v. Ford, 37 La. Ann. 443; State v. Ridley, 48 Iowa, 370; Mason v. State, 2 Tex. App. 192; Lawson v. State, 32 Ark. 220; Miller v. Com. 78 Ky. 15; People v. Richards, 67 Cal. 412; Landringham v. State, 49 Ind. 186; State v. Heyward, 2 Nott & McC. 312; State v. McKinstry, 50 Ind. 465; State v. Trice, 88 N. C 628; Smith v. State, 93 Ind. 67; State v. Chapin, 17 Ark. 561; Nevill v. State, 60 Ind. 309; People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572; Lisle v. Com. 82 Ky. 250; Com. v. Blackburn, Duv. 4; Clinton v. Estes, 20 Ark. 216; Reid v. State, 20 Ga. 681. Reg. v. Warburton, L. R. 1 C. C. 274.

Com. v. Judd, 2 Mass. 329; Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583; Twitchell v. Com. 9 Pa. 211; Smith v. People, 25 Ill. 17; State v. Potter, 28 Iowa, 556; Com. v. Hunt, 4 Met. 111; State v. Burnham, 15 N. H. 396; State v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; State v. Bartlett, 30 Me. 134; State v. Hewett, 31 Me. 398; State v. Rowley, 12 Conn. 101; State v. Parker, 43 N. H. 83; Alderman v. People, 4 Mich. 414; Hinchman v. Richie, Brightly, 143; Com. v. Bliss, 12 Phila. 580; Com. v. Ridgway, 2 Ashm. 247; State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765; Mifflin v. Com. 5 Watts & S. 461; United States v. Watson, 17 Fed. Rep. 145; Reg. v. Bunn, 12 Cox; C. C. 316; Reg. v. Vincent, 9 Car. & P. 109.

*Rex v. Hunt, 1820, 3 Barn. & Ald. 566.

*Clifford v. Brandon, 2 Campb. 358; Anon. 6 T. R. 626; Levi v. Levi (1833), 6 Car. & P. 239.

*Rex v. Kroehl, 1818, 2 Stark. N. P. 343; Rex v. Steventon, 1802, 2 East, 362.

duct by trades, employers or workmen regarding the price of goods or labor.'

The English Criminal Law Commissioners stated this general principle as the foundation of the law of conspiracy, that the confederacy of several persons to effect any injurious object creates such a new and additional power to cause injury as requires criminal restraint; although none would be necessary were the same thing proposed or even attempted to be done by any person singly.'

Many acts are said to be unlawful which would not be the subject of criminal conspiracy. Other acts are unlawful because they are in violation of the criminal law or some penal statute. If the ends or the means are criminal in themselves or contrary to some penal statute, the conspiracy is clearly an offense."

A conspiracy to commit a felony or misdemeanor or any criminal act is indictable. So it is indictable to conspire to charge one with a crime, although there be no intent to procure a prosecution. It is also indictable to form a conspiracy to cheat one by making one drunk and playing falsely at cards with him."

As a general rule at common law all confederacies wrongfully to prejudice another are misdemeanors and indictable, whether the intention is to injure his property, his person, or his character. It is the intent to cause injury that poisons the agreement.* All of the parties to the conspiracy need not be able each to aid

'Rex v. Bykerdyke, 1832, 1 Mood. & Rob. 179. See Reg. v. Druitt, 10 Cox, C. C. 592, 16 L. T. N. S. 855, 859; Reg. v. Hewitt, 1851, 5 Cox, C. C. 162; Rex v. Norris, 2 Ld. Ken. 300; Rex v. Macbey, 6 T. R. 619, 636; Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach, C. C. 214; People v. Fisher, 14 Wend. 9; Master Stevedores Asso. v. Walsh, 2 Daly, 1.

Seventh Report, p. 90.

State v. Glidden, 3 New Eng. Rep. 849, 55 Conn. 46.

People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 265; Com. v. Kingsbury, 5 Mass. 106; State v. Buchanan, 5 Harr. & J. 317.

Com. v. Tibbetts, 2 Mass. 536; People v. Jones, 12 West. Rep. 77, 67 Mich. 544.

State v. Younger, 12 N. C. 357.

1 Hawk. P. C. chap. 72, § 2; Delz v. Winfree,

1891.

Tex.

March 24,

Horseman v. Reg. 16 U. C. Q. B. 543; Reg. v. Kenrick, 5 Q. B. 49; Com. v. Ridgway, 2 Ashim. 247; Rex v. Richardson, 1 Mood. & Rob. 402; March v. People, 7 Barb. 391; State v. Rickey, 8 N. J. L. 60.

or to accomplish it. It is sufficient if one can do the act proposed to render all consenting and combining guilty.'

A conspiracy to injure a man in his trade or profession is indictable. All conspiracies to "excite disaffection” are indictable at common law. A conspiracy to stir up jealousies, hatred and ill will between different classes of citizens is unlawful; or to induce others to violate the laws.

6

5

It is said that there are many cases in which the act itself would not be cognizable by law, if done by a single person, which becomes the subject of indictment when effected by several by a joint design. Thus each person at a public exhibition has a right to express his disapprobation of the performance, but if several previously agree to express condemnation they may be guilty of conspiracy.'

So it has been said, there are other cases in which, though the act may be morally criminal, it is not illegal except on the ground of conspiracy; the verbal slander of a private individual is not indictable at common law, but it is so where several unite in a scheme to blast his character."

But where the act is lawful for an individual, it can be the subject of a conspiracy, when done in concert, only where there is a direct intention that injury shall result from it; thus if a number of persons should combine to establish a ferry, not from motives of public or private utility, but to ruin or injure the owner of a neighboring ferry, the wickedness of the motive would render the association criminal, although it would be otherwise if the com

Reg. v. McMahon, 26 U. C. Q. B. 195; United States v. Bayer, 4 Dill. 407;
Den v. Johnson, 18 N. J. L. 87; Boggus v. State, 34 Ga. 275; State v.
Sprague, 4 R. I. 257; State v. Gooch, 105 Mo. 392.

Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach, C. C. 274, 3 Dougl. 337, approved in 1885; Mogul
Steamship Co. v. McGregor, L. R. 15 Q. B. Div. 476, 482. See also Reg. v.
Hewitt, 5 Cox, C. C. 162; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 10-15; Walker
v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 564; Master Stevedores Asso. v. Walsh, 2 Daly, 127
Rex v. Bykerdyke, 1 Mood. & Rob. 179; State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L.
151; Walsby v. Anley, 3 L. T. N. S. 666.

8 Reg. v. Vincent, 9 Car. & P 91; Reg. v. Shellard, 9 Car. & P. 277; Rex v. Hunt, 3 Barn. & Ald. 566; Russ. Cr. 681.

4 O'Connell v. Reg. 11 Clark & F. 155.

'Hazen v. Com. 23 Pa. 355; Com. v. Kostenbauder (Pa.) 3 Cent. Rep. 632: State v. Stewart, 4 New Eng. Rep. 378, 59 Vt. 273.

• Rex v. Marcbey, 6 T. R. 636.

9 Clifford v. Brandon, 2 Campb. 358.

* Rex v. Kimberty, 1 Lev. 62; Rex v. Armstrong, 1 Vent. 304.

bination were to employ capital in fair business competition with others in the same calling for profit and not for oppression. So the combination is criminal where the object is to benefit the conspirators to the prejudice of the public or the oppression of individuals, and where such prejudice or oppression is the natural and necessary consequence. Thus if the bakers of a town were to combine to hold up the article of bread; or a powerful corporation to control the article of sugar; or a necessary article in common use like matches, and by means of a scarcity thus produced extort an exorbitant price for it, although the injury to the public would be only collateral to the object of the association, it would be indictable. '

1

2

So there must be an agreement of two or more persons to do the act, not a mere intention. But consent will amount to such agreement.

Conspiracies to accomplish purposes which may or may not be by law punishable as crimes, but which are unlawful as violations of the rights of individuals, and for which the cival law will afford a remedy to the injured party, and will at the same time and by the same process punish the offender for the wrong and outrage done to society, by giving exemplary damages beyond the damages actually proved, have in numerous instances been treated as common law offenses. Among these may be included conspiracy to accomplish a seduction; conspiracy to prosecute; conspiracy to procure an arrest; to injure the personal property of another;" to injure one in his business.

8

1 Com. v. Carlisle, Brightly, 36; People v. North River Sugar Ref. Co. 2 L. R. A. 33, 22 Abb. Ñ. C. 164, 5 L. R. A. 387, 54 Hun, 354; Richardson v. Buhl, 6 L. R. A. 457, 77 Mich. 632.

2 Reg. v. Peck, 9 Ad. & El. 686; Mulcahy v. Reg. L. R. 3 Eng. & Ir. App. 306; Reg. v. Parnell, 14 Cox, C. C. 508; Reg. v. Absolon, 1 Fost. & F. 498; United States v. Johnson, 26 Fed. Rep. 682; State v. Glidden, 3 New Eng. Rep. 849, 55 Conn. 46; United States v. Nunnemacher, 7 Biss. 111.

3 State v. Anderson, 92 N. C. 732; United States v. Babcock (Mo.), 3 Cent. L. J. 144; United States v. Goldberg, 7 Biss. 175.

• State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765; Smith v. People, 25 Ill. 24; Anderson v. Com. 5 Rand. 629.

State v. Walker, 32 Me. 195; Com. v. McLean, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. 367; Bloomfield v. Blake, 6 Car. & P. 75.

Elkin v. People, 28 N. Y. 177.

Lowery v. State, 30 Tex. 402; State v. Flynn, 28 Iowa, 26; Beecher v. Webb, 113 Ill. 436; State v. Earwood, 75 N. Č. 210.

* Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach, C. C. 274; Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, L. R.

So to commit an assault and battery.'

To involve one in an inquisition of lunacy without reasonable evidence, or place in an insane refuge.'

So also a conspiracy to slander; or to commit a trespass.*

But a mere agreement to do an act which of necessity involves the concurrent consent and co-operation of two persons, is not a conspiracy between such person, as adultery or fornication, or duelling, bigamy, etc. The agreement or consent or collusion may be inferred from the acts proved.' It may be shown by circumstantial evidence. A consent after the conspiracy is in action is

sufficient."

6

It is a common law offense to conspire to do an immoral act, although the act is not, if done by an individual of his own motion, illegal, except in the sense that contracts resting upon the consideration of such an act cannot be enforced."

§ 66. Conspiracy against Civil Government. This includes of course all conspiracies against civil governments, which are made crimes by statute or are such at common law, as treason."

15 Q. B. Div. 476, 482; King v. Cope, 1 Stra. 144; King v. Leigh, 1 Car. & K. 28; Clifford v. Brandon, 2 Campb. 358; Wildee v. McKee, 1 Cent. Rep. 919, 111 Pa. 335; People v. Petheram, 7 West. Rep. 592, 64 Mich. 252; Emannel's Case, 6 City Hall Rec. 33.

1 State v. Pulle, 12 Minn. 164; Com. v. Putnam, 29 Pa. 296; State v. Ormiston, 66 Iowa, 143; but not an abortion, Scott v. Eldridge (Mass.) 12 L. R. A. 379.

9 Davenport v. Lynch, 51 N. C. 545.

Hinchman v. Richie, Brightly, 143; Mintzer v. Sheriff (Pa.) 1 Campb. Leg. Gaz. Rep. (Pa.) 340; Com. v. Sheriff, 8 Phila. 645.

4 State v. Hickling, 41 N. J. L. 208; State v. Burlingham, 15 Me. 104; Com. v. Tibbetts, 2 Mass. 536; Johnson v. State, 26 N. J. L. 313; Reg. v. Best, 2 Ld. Raym. 1167; Frubaly v. Childe, 1 Sid. 68; Rex v. Armstrong, í Vent. 304; Rex v. Rispal, 1 W. Bl. 368.

State v. Straw, 42 N. H. 393; State v. Simpson, 12 N. C. 502.

Miles v. State, 58 Ala. 390.

State v. Ripley, 31 Me. 386.

Spies v. People, 10 West. Rep. 701, 122 Ill. 1.

People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Spies v. People, 10 West. Rep. 701, 122 Ill. 1; Smith v. State, 21 Tex. App. 96.

10Lord Gray (1682), 2 St. Tr. 519; Rex v. Delaval (1763), 3 Burr. 1434, 1 W. Bl. 410, 439; Young's Case (1780), cited in 1788 in Rex v. Lynn, 2 T. R. 733; Reg. v. Mear (1851), 2 Den. C. C. 79; Reg. v. Howel (1864), 4 Fost. & F. 160; Anderson v. Com. 5 Rand. 627; State v. Burnham, 15 N. H. 396; State v. Parker, 43 N. H. 83; State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765; State v. Dewitt, 2 Hill, L. 282; State v. Shooter, 8 Rich. L. 172; Mifflin v. Com. 5 Watts & S. 461; Smith v. People, 25 Ill. 24.

"O'Connell v. Reg. 11 Clark & F. 155; Spies v. People, 10 West. Rep. 701, 122 Ill. 1; Com. v. Blackburn, 1 Duv. 4.