whom they shall employ, is indict- | could see it, and they do the very able. Rex v. Bykerdike, 1 M. & Rob. 179-Patteson. An indictment for a conspiracy to impoverish a man, by preventing him from working at his trade, need not state the overt acts used to effect the intended mischief. Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach, C. C. 274. A conspiracy to obstruct a manufacturer in carrying on his business, by inducing and persuading workmen who had been hired by him to leave his service, in order to force him to raise his rate of wages, or to make an alteration in the mode of conducting and carrying on his trade, is an indictable offence; and an agreement to induce and persuade workmen, under contracts of servitude for a time certain, to absent themselves from such service, is an indictable offence, although no threats or intimidation are proved, or any ulterior object averred. Reg. v. Duffield, 5 Cox, C. C. 404 -Erle. Workmen who agree that none of those who make the agreement will go into employ unless for a certain rate of wages, have no right to agree to molest, or intimidate, or annoy other workmen in the same line of business, who refuse to enter into the agreement, and who choose to work for employers at a lower rate of wages. Ib. In these cases the essence of the offence is the combination to carry out an unlawful purpose, and the unlawful combination or conspiracy is to be inferred from the conduct of the parties. Ib. If persons conspire together to take away the workmen of a manufacturer, that constitutes such an obstruction and molestation of him as to support that part of a count which alleges a conspiracy by molesting and obstructing him. Ib. If a handbill says that certain things will be done by certain persons, and that handbill is circulated where it is probable those persons thing that the handbill indicates they would do, the contents of the handbill are admissible against them. Ib. In order to render the speech of a third person at a meeting admissible on an indictment for conspiring against third parties, not present at that meeting, it must be shewn either that such third person was co-operating at that time with the defendants as a co-conspirator, and engaged with them in one common purpose, or that he was acting as the agent of the defendant. Ib. An indictment charged the defendants with conspiring to force workmen hired and employed by P. in his business of a japanner to depart from their employment, by unlawfully molesting them; by unlawfully using threats to them; by unlawfully intimidating them; by unlawfully molesting P., and by unlawfully obstructing P. so carrying on his business, and the workmen so hired :-Held, that these counts were sufficiently full and certain, and that the means by which the conspiracy was to be carried on were well stated in the words of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, s. 3. Reg. v. Rowlands, 17 Q. B. 671; 21 L. J., M. C. 81; 5 Cox, C. C. 436. See Hilton v. Eckersley, 1 Jur., N. S. 874; 24 L. J., Q. B. 353; 6 El. & Bl. 47. The Philanthropic Society of Coopers was formed in order to relieve its members when sick, and to provide for their funerals. One of their members was fined by them for working in a yard where steam machinery was used, and upon non-payment of the fine they acted in such a way as to prevent him from obtaining work :-Held, an illegal combination and conspiracy. Reg. v. Hewitt, 5 Cox, C. C. 162 - Campbell. An indictment against journeymen for a conspiracy against their employers, to prevent them from An indictment for conspiring "to prevent the workmen of J. G. from continuing to work, &c.," is supported by evidence of a conspiracy to prevent any from continuing, &c. Rex v. Bykerdike, 1 M. & Rob. 179-Patteson. 3. Parties Indictable. Where two conspire, and one dies, the other may still be indicted for the conspiracy. Rex v. Nicholls, 13 East, 412, n. Three persons being in a publichouse with the prosecutor, one of them in concert with the other two placed a pen case on the table and left the room. Whilst he was absent, one of the two remaining took the pen out of the case, and put a pin in its place, and the two induced the prosecutor to bet with the other, when he returned into the room, that there was no pen in the case, and the prosecutor staked 508. On the pencil case being turned up, another pen fell into the prosecutor's hand, and the three took the money :-Held, that the evidence supported a conviction upon a count charging the three with conspiring by false pretences and fraudulent devices to cheat the prosecutor of his money, although it appeared that he had the intention of cheating one of the three if he could. Reg. v. Hudson, Bell, C. C. 263; 8 Cox, C. C. 305; 6 Jur., N. S. 566; 29 L. J., M. C. 145; 8 W. R. 421; 2 L. T., N. S. 263. 4. Indictment. In an indictment for a conspiracy to extort money, one count averred that the defendants, in pursuance of a conspiracy to extort money from the prosecutor, falsely exhibited certain indictments against him; another count averred that the defendants, in pursuance of the like conspiracy, offered to suppress an indictment pending against the prosecutor, if he would give them money for so doing. The jury found the defendants guilty, but found specially, that the indictments preferred by them against the prosecutor were not false :Held, that the averment in the former count was immaterial, and that the latter count would support the conviction. Rex v. Hollingberry, 6 D. & R. 345; 4 B. & C. 329. An indictment to conspire to raise the price of funds with intent to injure the persons who should purchase is well enough, without specifying the particular persons who purchased as the persons intended to be injured. Rex v. De Berenger, 3 M. & S. 68. An indictment charged that the defendants conspired, by divers false pretences and subtle means and devices, to obtain from A. divers large sums of money, and to cheat and defraud him thereof:-Held, that the gist of the offence being the conspiracy, it was quite sufficient only to state that fact and its object, and not necessary to set out the specific pretences. Rex v. Gill, 2 B. & A. 204. In an indictment for a conspiracy, in producing a false certificate in evidence, it is not necessary to set forth that the defendants knew at the time of the conspiracy that the contents of the certificate were false; it is sufficient that for such purpose they agreed to certify the fact as true, without knowing that it was so. Rex v. Maubey, 6 T. R. 619. An indictment to cheat and defraud a party of the fruits and advantages of a verdict obtained, is too general, and bad in point of law. Rex v. Richardson, 1 M. & Rob. 402-Denman. Where the overt acts were charged to have been done with intent to defraud L. G., who was entitled to receive the sum of money in question, and the jury found that L. G., was not so entitled :-Held, that a verdict of guilty could not be supported. Reg. v. Dean, 4 Jur. 364. A count for conspiring to deceive and defraud divers of her majesty's subjects who should bargain with the defendants for the sale of goods, of great quantities of such goods, without making payment, remuneration or satisfaction for the same, with intent to obtain profit and emolument to the defendants (not stating with particularity what the defendants conspired to do), is bad, as not shewing that the conspiracy was for a purpose necessarily criminal. Reg. v. Peck, 9 A. & E. 686; 1 P. & D. 508. But it is no objection that the count does not name the parties who were to have been defrauded. Ib. A count charging that the defendants, being indebted to divers persons, conspired to defraud them of the payment of such debts, and in pursuance of such conspiracy executed a false and fraudulent deed of bargain and sale and assignment of certain goods from two of themselves to a third, with intent thereby to obtain emoluments to themselves, is bad, for omitting to shew in what respect the deed was false and fraudulent. Ib. A first count of an indictment charged that the prisoners, intending to defraud one J. G., did conspire to cheat and defraud J. G., of a certain large sum of money, to wit, 207. The second charged a conspiracy, by false pretences, to obtain from J. G. a large sum of money, to wit, 207., and to cheat and defraud him thereof. The third count charged a conspiracy by false pretences feloniously to steal from J. G. a large sum of money, to wit, 201. The fourth count charged an attempt, by false pretences, to obtain from J. G. the sum of 201., with intent to defraud. The fifth and last count charged that the prisoners, by false pretences, did attempt to steal from J. G. a large sum of money, to wit, 207., of the monies of the said J. G. The prisoners were found guilty, and judgment was passed on each count. They were convicted on all the counts, and were sentenced to a distinct punishment on each :-Held, that the fifth and last was a good count, and that the conviction must therefore be affirmed. Reg. v. Bullock, Dears. C. C. 653; 25 L. J., M. C. 92. An indictment charging that the defendants unlawfully, fraudulently and deceitfully did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, to cheat and defraud the prosecutor of his goods and chattels, is good. Sydserff v. Reg. (in error), 11 Q. B. 245; 12 Jur. 418-Exch. An indictment charged that the defendants conspired to cheat and defraud certain liege subjects of the Queen, being tradesmen, of quantities of their goods; that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, the defendant B. fraudulently ordered and obtained upon credit from W. W. and C. W., upholsterers, divers goods of W. W. and C. W. (the count stated a like obtaining on credit from other tradesmen named, and from others whose names were unknown); and that, in further pursuance of their conspiracy, and in order that the goods might be taken in execution and sold, as after mentioned, the defendants ordered the same to be delivered by W. W. and C. W. at the house of B., and they were so delivered and never paid for; and in further pursuance, &c., and in order, &c., B. allowed them to continue in his house till they were taken in execution as after mentioned. That the defendants, in further pursuance, &c., did falsely and fraudulently pretend that An indictment for a conspiracy to obtain goods by false pretences was bad, before 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 8, if it did not state to whom the goods belonged. Reg. v. Parker, 2 G. & D. 709; 3 Q. B. 292; 6 Jur. 822. certain debts were due from B. to | thereon. Reg. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. K. and P., two others of the de- 126; 8 Jur. 145; 13 L. J., M. C. fendants, and K. and P. did, to 131. obtain payment of such fictitious debts, by collusion with B., commence actions against B.; that K. and P. collusively signed judgment against B. in the actions, and issued execution thereon, by virtue of which the goods, before the expiration of the times of credit, were taken in execution, and sold to satisfy the fictitious debts: and so the jurors found the defendants in manner and means aforesaid did cheat and defraud W. W. and C. W. of the goods-Held, that the indictment was good. Reg. v. King, 7 Q. B. 782; D. & M. 741; 8 Jur. 662; 13 L. J., M. C. 118. Error being brought upon the judgment:-Held, that the indictment was bad, for that the words alleging conspiracy shewed a design to injure, not tradesmen indefinitely, but individuals, and therefore either the persons should have been named, or an excuse stated for not naming them, and that the allegation of conspiracy was not aided by the overt acts; and that the overt acts themselves did not, either in connexion with the allegation of conspiracy, or independently, amount to indictable misdemeanors. King v. Reg. (in error), 7 Q. B. 782; 9 Jur. 833; 14 L. J., M. C. 172-Exch. Cham. A count stated that the defendants conspired to cause goods, wares and merchandise, which had been imported into the port of London, whereof duties of customs were then and there due and payable, to be taken and carried away from the port, and to be delivered to the owners thereof, without payment of a great part of the duties of customs so then and there due and payable thereon:-Held, that the gist of the offence being the conspiracy, it was not necessary to specify the goods, wares and merchandises, or the duties payable A count charged the defendants with a conspiracy, by false pretences and subtle means and devices, to extort from T. E., one sovereign, his monies, and to cheat and defraud him thereof; the evidence failed to prove that the defendants employed any false pretence in the attempt to obtain the money :-Held, that so much of the count might be rejected as surplusage, and the defendants convicted of the conspiracy to extort and defraud. Reg. v. Yates, 6 Cox, C. C. 441. In an indictment for conspiracy at common law to effect objects prohibited by a statute, it is enough to follow the words of the act of parliament. Reg. v. Rowlands, 2 Den. C. C. 364; 16 Jur. 268; 21 L. J., M. C. 81. An indictment that C. died possessed of East India stock, leaving a widow; that the defendants conspired, by false pretences and false swearing, to obtain the means and power of obtaining such stock; that in pursuance of such conspiracy, they caused to be exhibited in the prerogative Court of Canterbury a false affidavit made by one of them, in which the deponent stated that C.'s widow had died without taking out administration to C., and that deponent was one of her children; and that the defendants fraudulently obtained to deponent, as one of the children of C., a grant of administration to his estate. On motion to arrest the judgment, on the ground that a charge of conspiracy to obtain the means and power of obtaining the stock, did not describe any offence: Semble, that the statement of the overt act done in furtherance of the objects of conspiracy was so interwoven with the charge of conspiracy itself, as to show an unlawful conspiracy. Wright v. Reg. (in error), 14 Q. B. 148. But held, that at all events the overt acts in themselves constituted a misdemeanor, on which the court could legally pronounce judgment. Ib. A count merely charging conspiracy in the same manner, without alleging the overt acts, is bad. Ib. The defendants were tried at a quarter sessions upon an indictment, one of the counts of which charged a conspiracy, "by divers false pretences against the statute in that case made and provided, the said R. B. of his monies to defraud, against the form of the statute"-Held, that the count sufficiently charged a conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences, and that it must be taken, after verdict, that the conspiracy was one of which a court of quarter sessions had cognizance, under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1. Latham v. Reg. (in error), 9 Cox, C. C. 516; 5 B. & S. 635; 10 Jur., N. S. 1145; 33 L. J., M. C. 197; 12 W. R. 908; 10 L. T., N. S. 571. A count is good which simply charges that the defendants, unlawfully, &c., did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, by divers false pretences and indirect means, to cheat and defraud R. of his monies. Reg. v. Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 824; 11 Jur. 204; 16 L. J., Q. B. 121. In an indictment charging a conspiracy to cheat and defraud J. D. and others of goods, and laying as an overt act the obtaining goods of J. D. and others, the word "others" "others his partners throughout, and evidence of conspiring to defraud other persons must mean than J. D. and his partners is admissible. Reg. v. Steel, 2 M. C. C. 246; Car. & M. 337. An indictment that certain persons "unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously did conspire and agree with each other, and with divers other persons unknown, to raise and create discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjects of her Majesty, and to excite such subjects to hatred and contempt of the government and constitution of this realm as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposition to the government and constitution; and also to stir up jealousies, hatred and ill-will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, feelings of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Majesty's subjects in other parts of the United Kingdom called England": - Held, that this statement, with or without the additional charge, "and to assume and usurp the prerogative of the crown in the establishment of courts for the administration of law," constituted a definite charge against the several defendants of an agreement between them to do an illegal act. O'Connell v. Reg. (in error), 11 C. & F. 155; 9 Jur. 25. A count setting forth an agreement between persons "to cause and procure, and aid and assist in causing and procuring, diverse subjects of her Majesty, unlawfully, maliciously and seditiously, to meet and assemble together in large numbers, at various times and at different places within Ireland, for the unlawful and seditious purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidations to be thereby caused, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration of great physical force at such assemblies and meetings, changes and alterations in the gov ernment, laws and constitution of the realm by law established," whether or not comprehending the |