Το

must be a combination to commit some act that is known as an offense at common law, or that has been declared an offense by statute, and that a conspiracy, therefore, to commit a mere private fraud or private trespass, is not criminal.117 But the overwhelming weight of authority is against these decisions. render a conspiracy criminal, it is not at all necessary that a criminal act shall be contemplated, either as the end or as a means. It is a misdemeanor to conspire to commit against another a mere private wrong, the only effect of which would be to render the wrongdoers liable to an action for damages, if acting individually. While While the contemplated wrong would not be indictable, the unlawful com

117 Alderman v. People, 4 Mich. 414, 69 Am. Dec. 321 (but see People v. Richards, 1 Mich. 216, 51 Am. Dec. 75); Com. v. Prius, 9 Gray (Mass.) 127, Beale's Cas. 810 (but see Com. v. Warren, 6 Mass. 74); State v. Rickey, 9 N. J. Law, 293 (disapproved in State v. Norton, 23 N. J. Law, 44 and State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. Law, 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649, Beale's Cas. 828). And see Rex v. Pywell, 1 Starkie 402, Beale's Cas. 807; Rex v. Turner, 13 East, 228, Beale's Cas. 805 (disapproved in Reg. v. Rowlands, 5 Cox, C. C. 436, 490, per Lord Campbell; and in Mifflin v. Com., 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 461, 463, per Chief Justice Gibson).

bination to commit it, because of the increased power to injure, is regarded as so far injurious to the public at large as to require the state to interfere. Hawkins says: "There can be no doubt that all combinations whatsoever, wrongfully to prejudice a third person, are highly criminal at common law." 118 And Chitty says: "All confederacies wrongfully to prejudice another are misdemeanors at common law, whether the intention is to injure his property, his person, or his character.'

99 119

143. Conspiracy to Commit a Trespass.

In accordance with this doctrine it is well settled that a conspiracy to commit any trespass upon the property of another, real or

1

118 1 Hawk, P. C. c. 72; Rex v. Edwards, 8 Mod. 320, Beale's Cas. 804.

119 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1139. And see the cases cited specifically in the following notes.

An indictment has been sustained for conspiracy to effect the escape of a female infant, with a view to her marriage against her father's will, Mifflin v. Com., 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 461, 40 Am. Dec. 527; for conspiracy to seduce a minor son and heir, "and carry him out of the custody, coun- · sel, and government of his father," with design to marry him to a woman of ill fame, Rex v. Thorp, 5 Mod. 221.

personal, is indictable at common law, though the intended trespass may be nothing more than a civil injury, and would not be indictable if committed.120

144. Conspiracy to Defraud.

The doctrine has also been frequently applied to conspiracies to perpetrate a fraud upon others. To obtain another's money or goods by mere false representations, without using false weights, measures, or tokens, is a mere private wrong at common law, and not an indictable cheat, and yet it has been held an indictable offense to conspire to defraud by such means.121 And the same is true of any other conspiracy to defraud by means that are not criminal, but merely wrongful.122

120 Wilson v. Com., 96 Pa. St. 56.

121 Reg. v. Mackarty, 2 Ld. Raym. 1179; Rex v. Wheatly, 2 Burrows, 1125, Beale's Cas. 97; Com. v. Warren, 6 Mass. 74. See, also, Reg. v. Hudson, 8 Cox, C. C. 305, Beale's Cas. 158.

122 Rex v. Edwards, 8 Mod. 320, Beale's Cas. 804: Reg. v. Warburton, L. R. 1 C. C. 274, Beale's Cas. 808; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534; People v. Richards, 1 Mich. 216, 51 Am. Dec. 75; People v. Underwood, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 546; Johnson v. People, 22 Ill. 314; and cases cited in the notes following.

123

125

to

Other Illustrations of Conspiracy to Defraud. Thus, indictments have been sustained for conspiracy to falsely read a release to an illiterate man, and thereby induce him to sign it; to persuade a man to bet on a race that is to be fraudulently run; 124 to get a man drunk and cheat him at cards; cheat one out of his land; 126 to obtain goods from a merchant without paying for them; 127 to induce a person, by false representations, to forego a legal claim; 128 to dispose of goods in contemplation of bankruptcy, with intent to defraud creditors; 129 to conduct a mock auction, or stifle competition at

123 Reg. v. Skirret, Sid. 312.

124 Reg. v. Orbell, 6 Mod. 42.

125 State v. Younger, 1 Dev. (N. C.) 357, 17 Am. Dec. 571.

126 People

Dec. 75.

v. Richards, 1 Mich. 216, 51 Am.

127 Reg. v. Orman, 14 Cox, C. C. 381; Com. v. Ward, 1 Mass. 473; Com. v. Eastman, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 189, 48 Am. Dec. 596.

128 Reg. v. Carlisle, Dears. C. C. 337, 6 Cox, C. C. 336.

129 Reg. v. Hall, 1 Fost. & F. 33. And see Heymann v. Reg., L. R. & Q. B. 102, 12 Cox, C. C. 383, 28 L. T. (N. S.) 162; Com. v. Goldsmith, 12 Phila.

an auction sale.130 And many other cases might be cited.131

145. Conspiracy to Slander or Extort Money.

It is also well settled that it is a misdemeanor at common law for two or more persons to conspire to slander another, or to make a false charge against him, either for the purpose of injuring his reputation, or for the purpose of extorting money from him, as in the case of blackmail, though verbal defamation and extortion of money otherwise than under color of office are not crimes at all at common law. 132

130 Reg. v. Lewis, 11 Cox, C. C. 404; Levi v. Levi, 6 Car. & P. 239.

131 See Reg. v. Brown, 7 Cox, C. C. 442; Reg. v. Kenrick, 5 Q. B. 49, 7 Jur. 848; Ellzey v. State, 57 Miss. 827; State v. Cole, 39 N. J. Law, 324.

Conspiracy between a servant and another to sell the master's goods at less than the proper price, and divide the difference, or otherwise de fraud the master. Reg. v. De Kromme, 17 Cox, C. C. 492.

Conspiracy between a female servant and a man for the latter to personate her master, and marry her, with intent to defraud her master's relations out of a part of his property. Rex v. Robinson, 1 Leach, C. C. 37, 2 East, P. C. 1010.

132 As conspiracy to falsely charge one with be