of uniform delivered for the use of the said [receiver] by the said A. B. under and in pursuance of the said contract. And the jurors, etc., further present, that the said A. B. and E. F., on the day of A.D. unlawfully and corruptly did give a certain gift, to wit, the sum of 10s., to the said C. D., so being such officer and servant of the said public body, to wit, the said receiver as aforesaid, the said receiver being a public body within the meaning of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, as an inducement to the said C. D. to forbear to do something in respect of a certain matter in which the said public body was then concerned, to wit, as an inducement to the said C. D. to forbear to reject such of the helmets from time to time supplied by the said A. B. for the use of the Metropolitan Police Force under the said contract herein before mentioned, as did not comply as regards their quality or workmanship with the terms of the said contract herein before mentioned; contrary to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, and against the peace, etc. Add counts charging the promises of gifts, etc., if the facts so warrant. (This precedent is framed from the indictment in R. v. Silberston, 129 Cent. Crim. Court, Sess. Pap. 372; 34 L. J. Newsp. 232.) PART III. CONSPIRACY; ATTEMPT, AND INCITEMENT, TO COMMIT CRIME. SECT. 1. Conspiracy, p. 1276. 2. Soliciting or inciting to commit Crime, p. 1293. SECT. 1. CONSPIRACY. Statutes. 33 Edw. 1-Ordinacio de Conspiratoribus.]—Conspirators be they that do confeder or bind themselves by oath, covenant, or other alliance that every of them shall aid and sustain the enterprise of the other, falsely and maliciously to indict or cause to be indicted or falsely to acquit people, or falsely to move or maintain pleas (and also such as cause children within age to appeal men of felony whereby they are imprisoned and sore grieve), and such as retain men in the country with liveries or fees for to maintain their malicious enterprises and to drown the truth: and this extendeth as well to the takers as to the givers, and stewards and bailiffs of great lords which by their seigniory, office or power undertake to maintain or support pleas or quarrels for parties other than such as touch the estate of their lords or themselves. This ordinance and final definition of conspirators was made and finally accorded by the King and his council in this parliament the 33rd year of his reign, and it was further ordained that justices assigned to the hearing and determining of felonies and trespasses in the several counties of England should have the transcript hereof. [The definition of conspiracies in this ordinance is not exhaustive. R. v. Tibbits and Windust [1902] 1 K. B. 77, 89; 71 L. J. (K. B.) 5: 20 Cox, 70, Lord Alverstone, C.J. The ordinance was repealed by 6 G. 4, c. 129, s. 2, so far as it related to combinations to obtain and advance, or to fix the rate, of wages.] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1-Jurisdiction of quarter sessions over certain conspiracies.]—Ante, p. 126. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 24, s. 1.]- After the passing of this Act (4th July, 1844) the several offences of badgering, engrossing, forestalling, and regrating be utterly taken away and abolished, and . . . no information, indictment, suit, or prosecution shall lie either at common law or by virtue of any statute, or be commenced or prosecuted against any person for or by reason of any of the said offences or supposed offences. Sect. 4.]-Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to the offence of knowingly spreading or conspiring to spread any false rumour with intent to enhance or decry the price of any goods or merchandise (post, pp. 1281, 1282), or to the offence of preventing or endeavouring to prevent by force or threats any goods, wares, or merchandise being brought to any fair or market, but that every such offence may be inquired of, tried and punished as if this Act had not been made. [These sections were repealed by 55 & 56 Vict. c. 19 (S. L. R.), but the repeal does not revive the offences or affect the proviso. See 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 38 (2); 55 & 56 Vict. c. 19, s. 1.] 14 & 15 Vict. c. 55, s. 2-Costs of prosecuting certain conspiracies.]— Ante, p. 246. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 29-Imprisonment with hard labour for certain conspiracies.]—Ante, p. 238. 22 & 23 Vict. c. 17—Conspiracies to be within Vexatious Indictments Act, s. 1.]-Ante, p. 7. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 4-Conspiracy to murder, felony.]-Ante, p. 813. 34 & 35 Vict. c. 31, s. 2—Trade unions.]—Ante, p. 1158. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 3-Conspiracy in trade disputes.]-Ante, p. 1159. 39 & 40 Vict. c. 22, s. 16—Trade unions.]—Ante, p. 1159. Common Law. Conspiracy is an indictable misdemeanor, consisting in the agreement of two or more persons (1 Hawk. c. 72, s. 8) to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. Unless two persons are found to have combined there can be no conviction. R. v. Thorp, 5 Mod. 221; Comb. 458 R. v. Plummer [1902] 2 K. B. 339; 71 L. J. (K. B.) 805; 20 Cox, 269; 66 J. P. 647. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect the very plot is an act itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced if lawful, is punishable if for a criminal object or the use of criminal means. Willes, J., in Mulcahy v. R., L. R. 3 H. L. 306, 317; and see R. v. Warburton, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 274, post, p. 1279: R. v. Tibbits and Windust [1902] 1 K. B. 77, 89; 71 L. J. (K. B.) 5; 20 Cox, 70. The offence cannot exist without the consent of two or more persons (not being husband and wife, 1 Hawk. c. 72, s. 8), and their agreement is an advancement of the intention which each has conceived in his mind, which then passes from a secret intention to the overt act of mutual consultation and agreement. R. v. Mulcahy, L. R. 3 H. L. 326, Lord Chelmsford. Thus an engagement by two or more is conspiracy, even if the conspirators do nothing in pursuance of the engagement. O'Connell v. R., 5 St. Tr., N. S. 1; 11 Čl. & F. 155; 8 Eng. Rep. 155; 1 Cox, 413. Some forms of conspiracy were indictable as early as 1293 (see 1 Rot. Parl. 96). The origin of the offence is by some traced to the Ordinacio de Conspiratoribus (33 Edw. 1 ante, p. 1276), which deals with certain forms of combination to abuse or pervert justice, and forms the foundation of the action of malicious prosecution. The history of the offence is fully dealt with in Wright on Conspiracies; 3 Steph. Hist. Cr. Law, 201; Encycl. Eng. Law, tit. " Conspiracy;" and see 3 Chit. Cr. Law, 1138. The term "unlawful" in the definition has been held to include civil wrongs as well as acts punishable criminally if done by one person. R. v. Rowlands, 17 Q. B., 671: R. v. Parnell, 14 Cox, 508 (Ir.): O'Connell v. R., ubi supra. But so far as this rule affected combinations in restraint of trade, it has been abrogated by 31 & 35 Vict. c. 31, and 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86 (ante, pp. 1158, 1159). The forms of indictable conspiracy may be classified under the following heads: 1. Conspiracy to commit an offence punishable by law (infra). 2. Conspiracy to cheat and defraud (post, p. 1278). 3. Conspiracy to injure individuals by wrongful acts otherwise than by fraud (post, p. 1280). 4. Conspiracy to prevent, obstruct, pervert, or defeat justice ( post, p. 1231). 5. Conspiracy or combination affecting trade (post, p. 1281). 1. Conspiracy to commit any offence punishable by law.]—Every agreement between two or more persons to commit any offence is conspiracy, and indictable whether the offence is punishable on indictment or on summary conviction. R. v. Pollman, 2 Camp. 229; 11 R. R. 698: R. v. Whitchurch, 24 Q. B. D. 420; 59 L. J. (M. C.) 77; 16 Cox, 743. It is immaterial that the offence agreed on is one which one of the conspirators could not singly commit. Thus a woman who, believing herself but not being with child, conspires with other persons to administer drugs to herself, or to use instruments on herself, with intent to procure abortion, is liable to be convicted of conspiracy to procure abortion, although if she had merely done the acts to herself with like intent, and had not been party to any conspiracy, she could not have been convicted under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 58, of the felony created by that section, she not being with child. R. v. Whitchurch, ubi supra. Conspiracy to commit treason is an overt act of treason, and may be tried as treason (ante, p. 928), or as treason felony under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12 (ante, p. 918): see Mulcahy v. R., L. R. 3 II. L. 306: R. v. Stone, 6 T. R. 527; 25 St. Tr. 1155; 3 R. R. 253 : R. v. O'Donnell, 7 St. Tr., N. S. 637: R. v. Davitt, 11 Cox, 676; but the fact that the overt acts of an offence charged as a conspiracy amount to treason does not make the indictment bad. R. v. O'Donnell, ubi supra: R. v. Deasy, 15 Cox, 334. As to seditious conspiracy, see R. v. Cooper, 4 St. Tr., N. S. 1249: O'Connell v. R. (ante, p. 1277). As to conspiracy to commit a breach of the peace, see R. v. Holberry, 4 St. Tr., N. S. 1347, and ante, pp. 998, 1098. Conspiracies to commit murder are now statutory offences. See 24 & 25 Vict. c. 1C0, s. 4 (ante, p. 813). As to conspiracy to kill an unborn child, see R. v. Banks, 12 Cox, 393. It is an indictable conspiracy to combine to violate the provisions of a statute or a bye-law made under statutory authority, or of a proclamation made under like authority (R. v. O'Connell, 2 St. Tr., N. S. 629: R. v. Thompson, 16 Q. B. 832; 20 L. J. (M. C.) 183), if the violation of the statute or bye-law would be a misdemeanor at common law, or is criminally punishable in some specific manner. See R. v. Bunn, 12 Cor, 316: R. v. Whitchurch (ubi supra). In many cases it has been held indictable to conspire to do acts which at the time of the decision were probably offences at common law or under ecclesiastical law, but which are now offences by statute. (See 1 Hawk. c. 72, s. 2: R. v. Best, 2 Ld. Raym. 1167; 1 Salk. 174.) Thus it is indictable to conspire to obtain money by procuring an appointment to an office in the customs. R. v. Pollman, 2 Camp. 229; 11 R. R. 689: and see R. v. Vaughan, 4 Burr. 2494; 49 G. 3, c. 126 (ante, p. 1081); or to conspire by violence, threats, contrivances, or other sinister means to induce a pauper in one parish to marry a pauper in another parish in order to saddle one of the parishes with the maintenance of both paupers. R. v. Tarrant, 4 Burr. 2106: R. v. Seward, 1 A. & E. 706; 3 L. J. (M. C.) 103: R. v. Herbert, 2 Ld. Ken. 466: R. v. Watson, 1 Wils. (K. B.) 41; and see 1 East, P. C. 461; 8 Mod. 320. As to other conspiracies to bring about a marriage, see R. v. Wakefield, 2 Lewin 1: Wade v. Broughton, 3 V. & B. 173. By 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 8, the endeavour, by any officer of any union, parish, or place, to induce any person to contract a marriage by threat or promise respecting any application to be made, or any order to be enforced, with respect to the maintenance of any bastard child, is in itself a misdemeanor. Conspiracies to do acts against public morals or decency may be said to fall under this head, because the acts would at one time have been punishable in the ecclesiastical courts if not in the common law courts. Thus it has been held indictable to conspire to entice a woman under age from her father's house to live in fornication, or even to carry her off with her own approval for that purpose; R. v. Lord Grey, 9 St. Tr. 127; 1 East P. C. 460; or to conspire to induce a woman, whether chaste or not, to become a common prostitute; R. v. Howell, 4 F. & F. 160; or to defile a girl; R. v. Mears. 2 Den. 79; 20 L. J. (M. C.) 59; 4 Cox, 423; or to assign a female apprentice, even by her own consent, for purposes of prostitution. R. v. Delaval, 3 Burr. 1434; 1 W. Bl. 410, 439. Most, if not all, of these acts are offences by statute if done by one person. See 48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, ss. 2, 3 (ante, p. 920). Conspiracy to marry under a false name, with a view to obtaining property by personation, was held indictable at common law. R. v. Robinson, 1 Leach, 37; 2 East, P. C. 1010. Marriage under a false name is now criminal. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 72, s. 4; 19 & 20 Vict. c. 116, s. 18; 55 & 56 Vict. c, 23, s. 15. 2. Conspiracy to cheat and defraud.]-Many of the decisions that a conspiracy to cheat or defraud is indictable turn on facts which proved that the cheat or fraud was itself indictable at common law or by statute. Thus it has been held that although it may not be a criminal offence at common law for a person to cheat his partner, yet where one of two partners combines, during the continuance of the partnership, with a third party to enable the one partner to cheat the other with regard to the division of the partnership property on a contemplated dissolution of the partnership, this combination is a conspiracy. R. v. Warburton, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 274; 40 L. J. (M. C.) 22; 11 Cox, 584. And where two persons agreed that the one should purchase, and the other should aid him in purchasing, goods on credit, apparently as an ordinary purchaser, but the purchaser did not intend to pay for such goods, and the other person knew that he did not intend to pay for them, this was held to be a conspiracy, because buying goods with intention not to pay was an unlawful act, though possibly not (before the passing of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 13 (1): see R. v. Jones [1898] 1 Q. B. 119, ante, p. 1149) criminally punishable. R. v. Orman, 14 Cox, 381, Bramwell, L.J. And if the parties conspire to obtain money by false pretences of existing facts, it seems to be no objection to the indictment for conspiracy that the money was to be obtained through the medium of a contract. R. v. Kenrick, 5 Q. B. 49; Dav. & M. 208; 12 L. J. (M. C.) 135. The following conspiracies to defraud have been held indictable :A conspiracy to impose pretended wine upon a man, as and for true and good Portugal wine, in exchange for goods; R. v. Mackarty, 2 Ld. Raym. 1179; 3 Id., 325; a conspiracy to defraud the public by means of a mock auction, that is, an auction with sham bidders, who pretend to be real bidders, for the purpose of selling goods at prices grossly above their |