+

146. Conspiracy to Injure Another in His Trade or Calling.

It is also an indictable offense at common law to maliciously conspire to injure another in his trade or calling by means that are wrongful, though not criminal,133 as to ruin a tradesman's business by bribing his serv ants or apprentices to make inferior goods;1 .134 or to hinder a tradesman from ex

ing the father of a bastard child. Timberley's Case, Sid. 68; Child v. North, 1 Keb. 203; Rex v. Armstrong, Vent. 304; Reg. v. Best, 2 Ld. Raym.

1167.

For other cases of conspiracy to slander or extort money, see Rex v. Kinnersley, 1 Strange, 193; Rex v. Parsons, 1 W. Bl. 392; Rex v. Ripsal, 1 W. Bl. 368, 3 Burrows, 1320; Com. v. Tibbetts, 2 Mass. 536; State v. Hickling, 41 N. J. Law, 208, 32 Am. Rep. 198; Elkin v. People, 28 N. Y. 177; People v. Dyer, 79 Mich. 480; State v. Jackson, 82 N. C. 565. See, also, State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534, where the early cases are reviewed and discussed.

133 Rex v. Cope, 1 Strange, 144; Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach, C. C. 274; Rex v. Leigh, 2 Camp. 372, note; Reg. v. Druitt, 10 Cox, C. C. 592; State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. Law, 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649, Beale's Cas. 828; Crump v. Com., 84 Va. 927, 10 Am. St. Rep. 895, Beale's Cas. 833.

134 Rex v. Cope, 1 Strange, 144. In this case, a prosecution was sustained for conspiracy to ruin

.

ercising his trade, or a laborer or mechanic from obtaining employment;135 or to impoverish and ruin an actor by hissing him and driving him from the stage; 136 or to compel a master to discharge a workman.137

147. Conspiracy to do Acts Prejudicial to the Public Generally.

The ground upon which any act is punished as a crime is because it injures, or tends to injure, the community at large; and therefore, in this sense, all criminal conspiracies are prejudicial to the public, and are punished for this reason. In this section the expression is used in a narrower sense, to denote acts which are peculiarly prejudicial to the public generally, as distinguished from individuals. It has been laid down broadly that an indictment will lie at common law for a conspiracy to do an act which is neither illegal nor immoral in an individual, but to effect a purpose which has a tendency to injure the

the trade of a card maker by bribing his apprentices to put grease into the paste, so as to spoil the cards.

135 Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach, C. C. 274.

136 Rex v. Leigh, 2 Camp. 372, note.

137 State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. Law, 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649, Beale's Cas. 828.

public. Thus, in a leading Massachusetts case it was held indictable to conspire to manufacture base and spurious indigo, with a fraudulent intent to sell the same to the public generally as genuine.138 Indictments have also been sustained for conspiracies to fraudulently put valueless shares in companies on the market, or to give shares a fictitious market value,139 and conspiracies to conduct a mock auction, with pretended bidders, 140

etc.

148. Combinations among Workmen.

* There are some cases in the reports in

which it has been held à crime for workmen in any particular trade or calling to combine for the purpose of raising their wages, on the ground that such combinations are injurious to trade. In an early English case journeymen tailors were indicted for a conspiracy to raise their wages by refusing to work for less. than a certain sum, and the indictment was

138 Com. v. Judd, 2 Mass. 329, 3 Am. Dec. 54, Beale's Cas. 54. See, also, McKee v. State, 111 Ind. 378.

139 Scott v. Brown (1892) 2 Q. B. 724. And see Reg. v. Aspinall, L. R. 2 Q. B. 48, 13 Cox, C. C. 563.

140 Reg. v. Lewis, 11 Cox, C. C. 404.

sustained, though it was conceded that it would have been perfectly lawful for either of the defendants to raise his wages if he could, and to refuse to work unless he should be paid what he demanded.141 There have

By the

been some decisions to the same effect in this country.142 These decisions, however, have not been generally followed. weight of authority it is not unlawful, either in England or in this country, for workmen to combine, by the formation of labor unions or otherwise, for the purpose of mutual protection against oppression or unfairness on the part of employers, provided they do not resort to or contemplate unlawful means to carry out their objects.143

141 Rex v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10, Beale's Cas. 820.

142 People v. Fisher, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 9, 28 Am. Dec. 501; People v. Trequier, 1 Wheeler, C. C. (N. Y.) 142.

143 Com. v. Hunt, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 111, 38 Am. Dec. 346. Beale's Cas. 821; Reg. v. Shepherd, 11 Cox, C. C. 325. See note, 28 Am. Dec. 529.

In Reg. v. Rowlands, 2 Den. C. C. 364, 17 Q. B. 671, 5 Cox, C. C. 466, it was said: "The law is clear that workmen have a right to combine for their own protection, and to obtain such wages as they choose to agree to demand." And in Reg. v. Duf

But if the agreement between workmen contemplates the use of unlawful means for accomplishing their object, they are guilty of a criminal conspiracy, though the object may be innocent. Thus, they are criminally responsible if they contemplate coercing an employer to discharge an employe in violation of a contract, or breaking a contract into which they have entered themselves.144 And a conspiracy to compel an employer to discharge an employe has been held indictable even where there was no contract for any fixed time.145 Such a conspiracy is to injure a per

field, 5 Cox, C. C. 404, it was said: "With respect to the law relating to combinations of workmen, nothing can be more clearly established, in point of law, than that workmen are at liberty, while they are perfectly free from engagement, and have the option of entering into employ or not, * to agree among themselves to say, 'We will not go into any employ unless we can get a certain rate of wages.'"

144 Com. v. Hunt, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 111, 38 Am. Dec. 346, Beale's Cas. 821; State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. Law, 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649, Beale's Cas. 828; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46; Reg. v. Duffield, 5 Cox, C. C. 404.

145 State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. Law, 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649, Beale's Cas. 828; State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 59 Am, Rep. 710; Reg. v. Hewitt, 5