Page images
PDF
EPUB

Nor man and No such prosecution is maintainable against a husband and wife wife.

alone, because they are esteemed but as one person in law. 1 Haw.

c. 72. $8. Persons acting In the case of R. v. Cope and others, 1 Stra. 144., the husband separately may and wife and servants were indicted for a conspiracy to ruin the be guilty of a

trade of the prosecutor, who was the king's cardinaker. The conspiracy.

evidence against them was, that they had at several times given

money to the prosecutor's apprentices, to put grease into the paste, To ruin pro

which had spoiled the cards. But there was no account given that secutor in his

ever more than one at a time was present, though it was proved trade.

they had all given money in their turns. It was objected that this could not be a conspiracy; for several persons might do the same thing, without having any previous communication with each other. But it was ruled, that the defendants being all of a family, and concerned in making of cards, it would amount to evidence of

a conspiracy. Act of conspir- In a prosecution for a conspiracy, the actual fact of conspiring ing need not be need not be proved; but it may be inferred from circumstances, proved.

and the concurring conduct of the defendants. R. v. Parsons,

1 Black. Rep. 392. To injure a If the indictment lay the offence to be an unlawful conspiracy, person in his

this, whether it be to charge a man with criminal acts, or such reputation.

only as may affect his reputation, is fully sufficient. The several charges in the indictment are not to be considered as distinct and separate counts, but as one and the same united and continued offence, pursued through its different stages. R. v. Rispal, 1 Black.

Rep. 368. To prevent a An indictment against several persons for conspiring together,

by indirect mcans, to prevent one H. B. from exercising the ing a particular trade of a tailor, was held good, without stating the mode. The trade.

illegal combination is the gist of the offence, and it is enough to state the conspiracy and the object. R. v. Eccles and others,

1 Leach, 274. 13 East, 230. (n.) To cheat a per

So also in a recent case, an indictment charging that the son of money. defendants conspired, by divers false pretences, and subtle means

and devices, to obtain from P. D. and G. D. divers large sums of money, and to cheat and defraud them thereof, was held sufficient; for the gist of the offence being the conspiracy, if that fact and its object be stated, the particular means and devices need not be

set out. R. v. Gill and Henry, 2 B. & A. 204. Aliler, if it be But an indictment will not lie for conspiring to commit a civil to commit a

trespass : as, to go by night into a person's grounds to take game. civil trespass R. v. Turner and others, 13 East, 228. In which case, Lord only.

Ellenborough C. J. said, that the case of R. v. Eccles was considered as a conspiracy in restraint of trade, and so far a conspiracy to do

an unlawful act affecting the public. See Russ. 564. Where the fraud Where two were indicted for conspiring to cheat prosecutor by is the subject of selling him an unsound horse, and it appeared that one had adivil proceeding. vertised the horse for sale as sound, and when prosecutor in

quired at the stables another of the defendants was there and stated particulars to confirin the fact of soundness, Lord Ellenborough held, that the case did not assume the shape of a conspiracy, but that the proceeding ought to have been an action on the warranty. R. v. Pywell and others, 1 Stark. 402. Russ.

person exercis

So, a conspiracy to deprive a man of the office of secretary to Where the conan illegal unincorporated trading company is not indictable, for, spiracy is to per Lord Ellenborough, instead of having an interest which the law deprive a person would protect, he was guilty of a crime. R. v. Stratton and others, situation. 1 Campb.549. (n.) Russ. 565.

In an indictment against the defendants for a conspiracy to To defraud cause themselves to be reputed persons of considerable property

tradesmen. and in opulent circumstances, for the purpose of defrauding tradesmen, the prosecutor may prove various instances of their giving a false representation of their circumstances, as overt acts of the conspiracy. R. v. Roberts and others, 1 Campb. 399.

And wherever a sufficient foundation is laid by evidence to go Declaration or to a jury, of several persons having met for the purpose of a con- act of each conspiracy, the declarations of any of the parties made at any time spirator is evi

dence against or place, relating to the object of the conspiracy, is evidence against all. R. v. Saller and others, Kingston Lent Ass. 1804, cor. Hotham B. 5 Esp. 125. But see 1 Phill. Ev. 89.

An indictment against workmen for conspiracy against their Conspiracy by employers, to prevent them from taking any apprentice, was held journeymen

against their to be sufficiently proved, by evidence of their having turned out

employers. from their employment with intent to compel their masters to dismiss any one apprentice. R. v. Ferguson and Edge, Lancaster Spring Ass. 1819, cor. Wood B. 2 Stark. N. P.489. — N. B. In Easter term following, the defendants received sentence of fine and imprisonment.

as

all.

to state the

con

II. Trial and Punishment. A conspiracy being a trespass, and tending to a breach of the Trial. peace, is cognisable by the general quarter sessions. R. v. Rispal, 3 Burt. 1321. 1 Blac. Rep. 368.

Where the object of conspiracy is illegal, it is not necessary to Not necessary state the nature of the means by which it is to be effected. Eccles's

means by wbich case, 13 E. R. 230. (n.) Russ. 568.

the conspiracy So, where the indictment charged defendants with conspiring is to be effected by divers false pretences to cheat A. of divers sums of money, it Nor the false was held not necessary to set out the specific pretences. R. v. pretences. Gill, 2 B. & A. 204. But where the act only becomes illegal in consequence of the But aliter where

the illegality means used or the object to be attained, as in the case of

results from spiracies to marry paupers, the illegality ought to be explained by particular proper statements. See 2 Russ. 569. 1 East, P. C. 461.

cirumstances. Semb., that there are no technical terms for charging the con- No technical spiracy in an indictment. 2 Russ. 569., and see R. v. Macarty, words of 2 Lord R. 1179. 2 East, P. C. 824.

conspiracy. It was formerly holden that an indictment for conspiracy must Venue. be tried where the conspiracy was, and not where the result of it was put in execution. Reg. v. Best, 1 Salk. 174.

But it has since been determined that the crime may be tried Where any wherever a distinct overt act of conspiracy was in fact committed. overt act took

place. R. v. Brisac and Scott, 4 E. R. 171. R. v. Bowes, cit. ib. 2 Russ. 569.

See 7 G. 4. c. 64.912., whereby any felony or misdemeanor began 7 G. 4., offence in one county and completed in another may be tried in either taking place in

two counties. county.

How far the

Where several persons are proved to have combined together acts or words of for the same illegal purpose, any act done by one of the party, in one conspirator pursuance of the original concerted plan, and with reference to are evidence

the common object, is in the contemplation of law the act of the against the

whole party; and, therefore, the proof of such act would be eviothers.

dence against any of the others who were engaged in the same conspiracy; and further, any declarations, made by one of the party at the time of doing such illegal act, seem not only to be evidence against himself, as tending to determine the quality of the act, but to be evidence also against the rest of the party, who are as much responsible as if they had themselves done the act. But what one of the party may have been heard to say at some other time, as to the share which some of the others had in the execution of the common design, or as to the object of the conspiracy, cannot, it is conceived, be admitted as evidence to affect them on their trial for the same offence. 1 Phill. Ev. 88. 2 Russ.

570. Proof of the On a prosecution for a crime to be proved by conspiracy, general conspiracy evidence of an existing conspiracy may in the first instance be generally. received, as a preliminary step to the more particular evidence,

by which it is to be shown that the individual defendants were guilty participators in such conspiracy. In such cases, the general nature of the whole evidence should be opened to the court, and if upon such opening, it should appear that there was no particular proof sufficient to affect the individual defendants, it would be ihe duty of the judge to stop the case in limine, and not to allow the general evidence to be received. The Queen's case, 2 Brod. & Bing. 310.

So, assuming that an alleged conspiracy to suborn witnesses against the accused party is a legitimate ground of defence, general evidence of an existing conspiracy is admissible, with this qualification, viz. that the proposed evidence should be previously opened to the court, as in the former case, in order to enable the judge to form an opinion of the probability of bringing the evi. dence home, so as to affect some person whose acts are material, and relevant to the issue of the indictment then under trial. The

Queen's case, 2 Brod. & Bing. 311. Wife of one of

On the trial of several persons for a conspiracy, the wife of one several defend of the defendants is not a competent witness for the rest, for their ness for any of acquittal would be a ground of discharge for the husband. R. v. defendants. Lockyer, 5 Esp. 107. R. v. Frederick, 2 Str. 1094. 2 Russ. 570. Conspiracy of Where defendants were indicted for conspiring to hold them. fraud ; similar selves out as persons of fortune, for the purpose of defrauding instances are tradesmen, it is competent to give evidence of their making similar evidence.

representations to other different tradesmen besides the prosecutor, on the ground that in prosecutions of this nature it is necessary to produce cumulative instances to prove the offence. Per Ld.

Ellenborough, R. v. Roberts, 1 Campb. 399.2 Russ. 572. Cross-examin. On an indictment against A., B., and C., C. only called a witness ation of witness to prove a conversation between himself and A. Held, that the for defence.

witness might be cross-examined as to other conversations between C. and A., though tending chiefly to criminate A. R. v. Krochl,

2 Stark. 343. 2 Russ. 573. Allegation, for Where A., B., C., and D. were charged with conspiring to obtain whose use the money illegally for the use of A., B., and C. ; and it appeared that

D., in whose hands the money was lodged for the use of A. and money to be got B., did not know that C. was to have any part of it: held, that by the conspirthe averment as to the application of the money, though laid ing was to be under a “viz.” was material

, and that as to D. the conspiracy material. was not proved as laid. R. v. Pollman, 2 Campb. 231. 2 Russ. 579,

Indictment for conspiring falsely to indict A. with intent to extort Indictment for money, and the jury found them guilty of conspiring to indict conspiring to with that intent, but not falsely : held to be sufficient to enable indict falsely, to the court to give judgment, for that such a conspiracy was a mis- defendant may demeanor, whether the charge was true or false. R. v. Holling- be convicted, berry, 4 B. & C. 329.

though the inAll the defendants convicted upon an indictment for a conspi- dictment was racy must be present in court when a motion for a new trial' is not false. made on behalf of any of them. R. v. Teal and others, 11 East, On motion for 307. R. v. Askew, 3 M. & S. 9. R. v. Lord Cochrane, 3 M. & S.

new trial, or in

arrest of judge 10. (2).

ment, all the So also on a motion in arrest of judgment, the desendants must defendants be personally present in court. R. v. Spragg et al., 2 Burr. must be pre936.

It is clear that those who are convicted of conspiracy at the suit Punishment. of the party shall have judgment of fine and imprisonment, and to On actions. render the plaintiff his damages. 1 Haw. c. 72. $ 9.

Also it is certain that he who is convicted at the suit of the king On indictment of a conspiracy to accuse another of a matter which may touch or information. his life, shall have judgment that he shall lose the freedom and franchise of the law (whereby he is disabled as a juror and discredited as a witness). } Haw. c. 72. $9.

And this is commonly called villanous judgment, which is given by the common law, and not by any statute. But it now is the better opinion, that the villanous judgment is by long disuse become obsolete, there being no instance of its having been pronounced since the reign of Edward the Third ; but instead thereof, the delinquents are usually sentenced to fine, imprisonment, and surety for good behaviour. 4 Blai. Com. 136, 137. 2 Burr. 996. 1027. I Haw. c.72. $ 9. 7th edit.

Previously to the stat. 56 G. 3. c. 138., in very aggravated cases, the offenders were generally also sentenced to stand in the pillory.

See the trial of Lord Cochrane and others, by Gurney, 1814.
See also stat. 3 G.4. c. 114. tit. Judgment.

sent.

Dogs.

(7&8G.4. c. 29. 31.] IN this part of the work dogs will be considered only so far as

the Criminal Law applies to them.

It is said that if a fierce mastiff is allowed to go in the street Fierce mastiff. unmuzzled, it is considered a common nuisance, as being dangerous and the cause of terror, and that the owner is indictable on that account. 1 Russ. 303.

By 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 29. $ 31., if any person shall steal any dog or 7 & 8 G. 4. c.29. any beast or bird ordinarily kept in a state of confinement, not Stealing dog,

&c.

N 3

being the subject of larceny at common law, on conviction before a magistrate, shall forfeit, for the first offence, over and above the value of the dog, &c., such sum not exceeding 201., as the magistrate shall think fit; and for a second offence may be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for any time not exceeding twelve calendar months; and if the conviction be before two magistrates, they may order the offender, if a male, to be once or twice whipped after the expiration of four days from the conviction.

By $ 32., if any dog, &c. or its skin, &c. be found in possession or on premises of any person by virtue of a search warrant, the justice granting the warrant may restore the same to the owner, and the person in whose possession, &c. it shall have been found (such person knowing the dog, &c. to have been stolen) shall, on conviction before a magistrate, be liable for the first offence to such forfeiture, and, for subsequent offences, to such punishments as persons convicted of stealing any dog, &c.

Having dog,
&c., or skin,
&c. in posses-
sion, &c., know-
ing it to have
been stolen.

For Form of Conviction, ib. 971. See tit. Larcenp.

For Application of Forfeitures and Penalties, and Power of

Appeal, ib. 99 66. 72. See tit. Larcenp.

in

The following decision on 10 G. 3. c. 18. (now repealed), being an act for preventing the stealing of dogs, may be useful with

reference to the provisions of the above act. R. v. Helps. R. v. Helps, 3 M. & S. 331. A commitment for dog-stealing Question on

directed to the constable and the governor of the house of correcsufficiency of tion, Coldbath-fields, was returned upon a habeas corpus, to the comınitment

effect following:-“ Middlesex (ss). Whereas Bryan Helps, late under 10 G. 3. of the parish of Paddington, in the county of Middlesex, came bec. 18. after appeal.

fore us, P. N. and G. F., two of H. M.'s justices of the peace and for the said county, and was charged, and convicted before us the said justices, at Marlborough-street, in the said county, on the

1st of June, 1814, upon the oaths of J. Wilson and others, of Parish.

having on the 16th of May 1814, at the parish of Paddington, in the said county, unlawfully stolen a certain dog of the spaniel kind, the property of the said i. W., from one J. T. G., being a person

entrusted by the said I. W., the owner thereof, with the said dog, (a) 10 G. 3.

contrary to a certain act of parliament, &c. (a), for which offence we the said two justices did order and adjudge the said B. Helps

to forfeit and pay the sum of 301. of lawful money, &c., to be apApplication of plied in such manner as the law directs, and which the said B. Helps forfeiture.

did neglect and refuse to pay, and did enter into a recognisance before us the said justices, with two sufficient sureties, for his personal appearance at the then next general quarter sessions of the peace to be holden for the said county of Middlesex, then and there

to prosecute his appeal with effect to the said conviction, and to Appeal.

abide the order of, and pay such costs as should be awarded by the justices at such quarter sessions, and at which said quarter sessions the appeal of the said B. Helps was heard, and what was alleged by the respective parties, their counsel, and witnesses, in and

concerning the premises, and it was ordered by the court that the Conviction

said conviction be, and the same was then and there affirmed; and affirmed.

it was further ordered, that the said B. Helps should forthwith

c. 18.

« PreviousContinue »