additional words, " and especially, | eral terms, the defendant is entitled by the means aforesaid, to bring to particulars of the charge, alabout and accomplish a dissolution though there has been a previous of the legislative union now subsist-committal by a magistrate. Thereing between Great Britain and Ire- fore, where an indictment containland," and whether or not omitting ed counts charging a conspiracy to the words "unlawfully, maliciously cheat tradesmen of goods, without and seditiously," does not sufficient- mentioning any specific case, or ly state the illegal purpose of such name, time or place :-Held, that agreement, and is, therefore bad the defendant was entitled to such for uncertainty. Ib. particulars. Reg. v. Rycroft, 6 Cox, C. C. 76-Williams.

person joins it afterwards, he is equally guilty with the original conspirators. Ib.

of the defence, provided the proposed evidence is previously opened to the court, as in the case of a pros ecution to be proved by conspiracy. The Queen's case, 2 B. & B. 302. On an indictment for conspiring and unlawfully meeting for the pur

On the trial of an indictment for a conspiracy to procure large numbers of persons to assemble for the purpose of exciting terror in the minds of her Majesty's subjects, ev-pose of exciting discontent and dis idence was given of several meet- affection, resolutions passed at a forings at which the defendants were mer meeting, in another place, and present, and it was proposed to ask at which one of the defendants prea witness, who was superintendent sided, the professed object of which of the police, whether persons com- meeting was to fix the meeting plained to him of being alarmed by mentioned in the indictment, are these meetings-Held, that the admissible to shew the intention o evidence was receivable, and that such defendant in assembling and it was not necessary to call the per- attending the meeting in question, sons who made the complaints. at which he also presided. Rex v. Reg. v. Vincent, 9 C. & P. 275- Hunt, 3 B. & A. 566. Gurney.

A copy of these resolutions delivered by such defendant to a witness at the time of the former meeting, as the resolutions then intended to be proposed, and which corresponded with those which the witness had heard read from a written paper, admissible without producing the original. Ib.

is

A. was charged with having conspired with J. and others unknown to raise insurrections and obstruct the laws. It was proved that A. and J. were members of a chartist lodge, and that A. and J. were at the house of the latter on a certain day, on the evening of which A. directed the people assembled at And large bodies of men having the house of J. to go to the race- come to the latter meeting from a course at P., whither J. and other distance, marching in regular order, persons had gone :-Held, that, on it was admissible to shew the charthe trial of A., evidence was receiv-acter and intention of the meeting, able that J. had at an earlier part of the day, directed other persons to go to the race-course; and it being proved that J. and an armed party of the persons assembled went from the New Inn-Held, that, evidence might be given of what J. said at the New Inn, it being all one transaction. Reg. v. Shellard, 9 C. & P. 277-Patteson.

General evidence of the conspiracy charged may be received in the first instance, although it cannot affect the defendant unless afterwards brought home to him, or to an agent employed by him. And the same rule applies where a defendant seeks by such general evidence in the first instance to affect the prosecutor with a conspiracy to suborn witnesses for the destruction

that within two days of the same great numbers of men were seen training and drilling before day break, at a place from which one of these bodies had come to the meeting, and on their discovering the persons who saw them, they illtreated them, and forced one of them to take an oath never to be a king's man again; and it was admissible, for the same purpose, to shew that another body of men in their progress to the meeting, on passing the house of one of the per sons who had been so ill-treated, expressed their disapprobation at his conduct by hissing. Ib.

An indictment for a conspiracy contained several counts, alleging several misdemeanors on the same day :-Held, that the prosecutor

might give evidence of several misdemeanors on different days. Rex v. Levy, 2 Stark. 458-Abbott.

On an indictment for a conspiracy, the letters of one of the defendants to the other are, under certain circumstances, admissible in evidence in his favor, to shew that he was the dupe of the other, and was not himself a participator in the fraud. Rex v. Whitehead, 1 C. & P. 67-Best.

servants, which would be for the benefit of the masters, and that afterwards the servants took fraudulent means to conceal the falsehood of the statements, with evidence that the employers had the means of knowing the falsehood, and knew of the devices used to conceal it, was no evidence to sustain the charge of a fraudulent conspiracy between the employers and servants. Reg. v. Barry, 4 F. & F. 389--Martin.

A prisoner was indicted in one count for obtaining money from the trustees of a savings bank by pretending that a document produced by the wife of T. had been filled up by his authority, and in another count for a conspiracy with the wife of T. to cheat the bank. The wife was not indicted. The evidence of T. having been received in support of the indictment, the prisoner was acquitted on the count for conspiracy, and convicted on the other :-Held, that T.'s evidence was properly re

A party may be convicted of a conspiracy to cheat and defraud, by means of a false and fraudulent representation as to the solvency or the trade of another, although the representation was oral, and one for which per se, he would not be civilly liable under 9 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 14; but the question will be not merely whether the representation was false and fraudulent, but whether it was made in collusion with the co-defendant, for the purpose of cheating the prosecutor. Reg. v. Timothy, 1 F. & F. 39-ceived, and that there was no inconChannell.

On an indictment for a conspiracy to defraud by false representations of solvency, the defendants may be convicted who had no knowledge of the transactions which resulted in insolvency, provided they were aware of the result, and concurred in the representations in furtherance of the common design, even although they did so with no motive of particular benefit to themselves. Reg. v. Esdaile, 1 F. & F. 213; S. C. nom. Reg. v. Brown, 7 Cox, C. C. 442--Campbell.

sistency in the finding of the jury. on the two counts. Reg. v. Halliday, 8 Cox, C. C. 298; 6 Jur., N. S. 514; 29 L. J., M. C. 148; 8 W. R. 423; 2 L. T., N. S. 254.

Where an indictment charges an ordinary conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove a common design between the defendants before proving the acts of each defendant; for the acts of each defendant are only evidence against himself, and may be the only means of establishing the conspiracy. Reg. v. Brittain, 3 Cox, C. C. 77-Coltman.

Overt acts in conspiracy, though Information for a conspiracy to not necessarily laid, and if laid not cause and procure goods to be improved as against all the defend- ported without payment of part of ants, may be looked at as shewing the duties of customs, by entering the object of the conspiracy. Ib. the goods as less in quantity and Certain wharfingers and their serv-quality than they really were. One ants were indicted for a conspiracy of the defendants, B., was a landto defraud by false statements as to ing-waiter; the other T., who did goods deposited with them and in- not appear to take his trial, was a sured by the owners against fire: Custom-house agent. According to Held, that evidence that false state- the course of business at the Cusments were knowingly sent in by the tom-house, certain goods consigned

to T. were placed in the custody of B., and, upon the examination of them, entries of the quantity and quality were made by B. and T. respectively in separate books, and the amount of duty was calculated thereupon:-Held, first, that evidence of an entry made by T. in his ledger, purporting to be an entry of the same goods, but varying from the preceding entries in respect to the quantity, was admissible for the purpose of proving the conspiracy, as an act tending towards the object of the conspiracy. Reg. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. 126; 8 Jur. 666; 13 L. J., M. C. 131.

prive B. of certain lease-hold messuages, whereof B. was lawfully possessed, and to cheat and defraud her of the rents and profits of the messuages; the evidence as to B.'s title was that F., before her death, directed S., her next-of-kin, to convey the messuages to B. on account of a supposed equitable claim of B. to money received by F. S., after the death of F., and before administration, executed an agreement to assign to B., and went with her to the houses, and pointed out the property, and said B. was landlady, and he hoped the tenants would not shuffle with her as they had with F. B. afterwards received a small sum as rent. There was no proof that F. or S. was ever in possession, and no other evidence of B.'s title: Held, that there was some evi

Held, secondly, that evidence of a memorandum made by T. on the counterfoil of a cheque drawn by him, that part of the money arising from the fraud was received by B., was inadmissible, it being a declar-dence of a possession by B. to supation of T. after the principal trans- port the averment in the indictment. action was complete. Ib. Reg. v. Whitehouse, 6 Cox, C. C. 129-Cresswell.

In the course of proving a conspiracy to defraud, carried into effect by prevailing upon the prosecutor to accept bills, a warrant of attorney, given to him for the purpose of inducing him to accept, reciting the acceptance, may be given in evidence, though unstamped. Reg. v. Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 824; 11 Jur. 204; 16 L. J., Q. B. 121.

An indictment alleging that I. W., C. W. and J. W., being persons in indigent circumstances, and intending to defraud tradesmen who should supply them with goods upon credit, conspired to cause J. W. to be reputed and believed to be a person of considerable property, and in opulent circumstances, for the An indictment for conspiring to purpose and with the intent of cheatdefraud the prosecutor may be sup-ing and defrauding divers persons ported by proof of a conspiracy to being tradesmen, who should barobtain his acceptances, though the gain with them for the sale to the prosecutor parts with no money, said I. W. of goods, the property and though he never has intended of such last-mentioned persons, of to take up the acceptances, and great quantities of such goods, withthough the bills were never in his out paying for the same, with intent hands, except for the purpose of his to obtain to themselves money and accepting. Ib. other profits, is not supported by Where an indictment for conspir-proof that C. W. and J. W., being acy contains several counts, if only a single conspiracy is proved, the verdict may nevertheless be taken on so many of the counts as describe the conspiracy consistently with the proof. Ib.

In support of an indictment charging a conspiracy to defraud and de

the wife and daughter of I. W., represented that they were in independent circumstances, their income being interest of money received monthly; at another time, when engaging lodgings, that they were not in the habit of living in lodgings, and that they obtained various

7. Trial and Verdict.

An indictment for a conspiracy to defraud is triable at quarter sessions. Latham v. Reg. (in error), 5 B. & S. 635.

goods from tradesmen on credit, were admissible against the person under circumstances that shewed so charged. Reg. v. Desmond, 11 an intent to defraud, but no proof Cox, C. C. 146-Cockburn and being adduced that those goods Bramwell. were obtained by reason of any of those general statements. Reg. v. Whitehouse, 6 Cox, C. C. 38-Platt. A count charging the defendants with conspiring, by divers subtle means and false pretences, to obtain goods and chattels from a tradesman, without paying for them, with intent to defraud him thereof, is supported by proof of overt acts, from which a conspiracy may be inferred, without proof of any such false pretence as is required in an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences. Ib.

On an indictment against A., B., C., D., E., F., G. and H., for conspiracy to cheat M. by selling a glandered horse as a sound horse, the evidence was, that A., having previously cheated M. by selling him a kicking horse, B., C., D. and E. obtained that horse from M. in exchange for a glandered horse, which he subsequently sold. A., accompanied by G., afterwards sold M. another horse, in which transaction the latter was again defrauded. Some evidence was given to shew that A. was frequently in company with some of the other defendants, and that he was aware of a previous sale of the glandered horse by them, but there was no other evidence to connect him with its sale to M.:Held, that, in the absence of any evidence clearly leading to the conclusion that A. was a party to that sale, there was no evidence of a conspiracy to go to the jury against him. Reg. v. Reade, 6 Cox, C. C. 134-Cresswell.

A number of persons was charged with murder, committed by an act done in the course of a con ́spiracy for the purpose of liberating a prisoner, of which conspiracy he was cognizant :-Held, that acts of that prisoner, within the prison, and articles found upon him,

A was indicted for conspiring with Y. and Z., and other persons to the jurors unknown. The evidence was confined to A., Y. and Z., and the jury was of opinion that A. conspired with either Y. or Z., but said that they did not know with which. Y. and Z. were thereupon both acquitted:-Held, that A. was entitled to be acquitted also. Reg. v. Thompson, 16 Q. B. 832; 5 Cox, C. C. 166. Reg. v. Denton, Dears. C. C. 3; 17 Jur. 453; 20 L. J., M. C. 183.

Upon a count charging one conspiracy, and one only, against all the defendants therein named, to effect several illegal objects, the jury may find all or some guilty of conspiring to effect one or more of the objects specified. O'Connell v. Reg. (in error), 11 C. & F. 155; 9 Jur. 25.

Where one defendant in conspiracy dies between the indictment and trial, it is no ground of a venire de novo for a mis-trial, if the trial proceeds against both, no suggestion of the death being entered on the record. Reg. v. Kenrick, 5 Q. B. 49; D. &. M. 208; 7 Jur. 848; 12 L. J., M. C. 135.

One of several prisoners indicted for conspiracy may be tried separately, and upon conviction, judg ment may be passed on him, although the others, who have appeared and pleaded, have not been tried. Reg. v. Ahearne, 6 Cox, C. C. 6.

Where three prisoners have been jointly indicted for a conspiracy to murder, and severally pleaded not guilty, but have severed in three