Slike strani
PDF
ePub

to excite dis

content and

Where some of the counts of an indictment charged the de- Conspiracies fendant with conspiring to cause a great number of persons to meet together for the purpose of exciting discontent and dis- disaffection. affection in the minds of the subjects of the Queen, and for the purpose of exciting the said subjects to hatred and contempt of the government and constitution, and it appeared that a large number of persons had assembled at meetings, at which violent speeches had been made respecting the government and constitution and the people's charter, Alderson, B., told the jury, The purpose which the defendants had in view, as stated by the prosecutors, was to excite disaffection and discontent, but the defendants say that their purpose was by reasonable argument and proper petitions to obtain the five points mentioned by their learned counsel. If that were so, I think it is by no means illegal to petition on those points. The duration of Parliaments and the extent of the elective franchise have undergone more than one change by the authority of Parliament itself; and with respect to the voting by ballot, persons whose opinions are entitled to the highest respect are found to differ. There can also be no illegality in petitioning that members of Parliament should be paid for their services by their constituents; indeed, they were so paid in ancient times, and they were not required to have a property qualification till the reign of Queen Anne, and are now not required to have it in order to represent any part of Scotland or the English Universities.' And the learned Baron directed the jury to say whether they were satisfied that the defendants conspired to excite disaffection, and if they were to find them guilty of conspiracy. (h)

Several cases have occurred in which the conspiring and contriving, by sinister means, to marry a pauper of one parish to a settled inhabitant of another, in order to bring a charge upon it, have been considered as indictable offences. (i) It is observed respecting a conspiracy of this kind, that, considering the offence is a prostitution of the sacred rites of marriage, for corrupt and mercenary purposes, and that, by artful and sinister means, persons are seduced into a connection for life without any inclination of their own, and contrary to that freedom of choice which is peculiarly required in forming so close an union, and on which the happiness of them both so entirely depends; and this for the sake of some gain or saving to others who bring about such marriage; in this light it seems a fit ground for criminal cognizance, not only as being a great oppression upon the parties themselves more immediately interested, but as an offence against society in general, being an abuse of that institution by which society is best continued and legal descents preserved, and a perversion of the purposes for which it was ordained. (j) But where, upon an indictment against parish officers for a conspiracy of this kind, it appeared that a man of one parish having gotten a woman with child belonging to another, the defendants had agreed with the man (who was (h) Reg v. Vincent, 9 C. & P. 91. See (i) Rex v. Tarrant, 4 Burr. 2106. Rex O'Connell v. Reg., 11 Cl. & F. 155, post. v. Herbert, 1 East, P. C. c. 11, s. 11, Since this case the Ballot Act has passed Rex v. Compton, Cald. 246. 8 (see 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33); and the property qualification of members of Parliament has been abolished by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 26.

p. 461.
Mod. 320.

(j) 1 East, P. C. c. 11, s. 11, p. 461.

Conspiring to

marry paupers in order to

charge a

parish.

Rex v. Seward.

of the age of 29), with the approbation of his father, to give him two guineas if he would marry the woman, and that he afterwards married her on such condition, and received the money from the defendants immediately after the marriage; and it was also sworn, both by the man and the woman, that they were willing to marry at the time; Buller, J., directed an acquittal, notwithstanding the proof of the money having been given to procure such consent; and this after the putative father had been taken up under a magistrate's warrant, and was in custody of the overseers. And that learned judge held it necessary, in support of such an indictment, to show that the defendants had made use of some violence, threat, or contrivance, or used some sinister means to procure the marriage without the voluntary consent or inclination of the parties themselves; and that the act of marriage, being in itself lawful, a conspiracy to procure it could only amount to a crime by the practice of some undue means. (k)

In a case where the indictment stated the marriage to have been procured by threats and menaces against the peace, &c., it was holden to be sufficient, without averring in terms that the marriage was against the will or consent of the parties, though that must be proved. ()

And it has since been held that an indictment does not lie for conspiracy merely to exonerate one parish from the charge of a pauper and to throw it on another, nor for conspiring to cause a male pauper to marry a female pauper for that purpose, it not being stated that the conspiracy was to effect such marriage by force, threats, or fraud, or that it was so effected in pursuance of the conspiracy. (m) An allegation in such an indictment that a poor unmarried woman in a parish was with child is not equivalent to an allegation that she was chargeable to such parish. (n) And it has been doubted whether an allegation that the defendants conspired together for the purpose of exonerating, is equivalent to an allegation that they conspired to exonerate. (0)

Upon an indictment for conspiring together, and giving the husband money to marry a poor helpless woman, who was an inhabitant of B., in order to settle her in the parish of A., where the husband was settled, judgment was arrested, because it was not averred that she was last legally settled in B. (p) But it is observed, that it seems to be perfectly immaterial where the woman's settlement was, if it were not in A., provided that fact distinctly appeared. (9) It is further said, however, that it is usual to aver the settlements of the parties in their respective parishes, and also that the woman was chargeable to her own parish at the time, though this latter has never been adjudged to be necessary, nor seems to be required according to the general rules which govern the offence of conspiracy. (7) It should seem that in

(k) Rex v. Fowler, 1 East, P. C. c. 11, p. 461. And the learned judge said that this point had been so ruled several times by several judges.

() Rex v. Parkhouse, 1 East, P. C. c. 11, s. 11, p. 462, Buller, J.

(m) Rex v. Seward, 1 A. & E. 706. 3 N. & M. 557.

(2) Per Lord Denman, C. J., and

Taunton, J., ibid.

(0) Per Williams, J., ibid. citing Rex v. Nield, 6 East, 417. But see Rex v. Ridgway, 5 B. & Ald. 527, where Rex v. Nield was doubted by Lord Tenterden, C. J.

(p) Rex v. Edwards, 8 Mod. 320.
(q) 1 East, P. C. c. 11, s. 11, p. 462.
(r) Id. ibid.

such cases both the purpose and the means used are clearly unlawful.

Conspiring to let a pauper land to the intent that he may gain a settlement is illegal. (8)

Conspiring to charge a man with being the father of a bastard child, with intent to extort money from him, is indictable; and where the object is stated to be to extort money, it is immaterial whether the woman is or is not pregnant. (t) And conspiring to make such a charge, though without any intent to extort money, is indictable; and it is not necessary to state in the indictment that the charge was false, or that the child was likely to be chargeable. The court doubted upon the objection that the charge was not stated to be false, but ultimately they held the indictment to be sufficient, as the defendants were at least charged with conspiring to accuse the prosecutor of fornication, and although that was spiritual defamation, conspiring to do it was a temporal offence. (u)

Conspiracy to charge a man father of a bastard child.

with being the

to defraud. Conspiring to

make a fraudulent acceptance of a bill of exchange.

The frauds practised by swindlers may sometimes be indictable Conspiracies as conspiracies. In a case which has been mentioned in a former part of this work, (v) where the prisoner had been acquitted upon a charge of forgery, he was afterwards indicted with two of his associates for a conspiracy to defraud. The indictment charged that the defendants Hevey, Beatty, and M'Carty, fraudulently and unlawfully conspired that Beatty should write his acceptance to a certain paper-writing, purporting to be a bill of exchange, &c. (the tenor of which was set out) in order that Hevey might, by such acceptance, and by the name M'Carty being indorsed on the back thereof, negotiate the said paper-writing as a good bill of exchange, truly drawn at Bath, by one Jer. Connell, for Smith and Co., as partners in the business of bankers, under the style of Bath Bank, as persons well known to them the said defendants, and thereby fraudulently to obtain from the King's subjects goods and monies; that Beatty, in pursuance of such conspiracy and agreement, did fraudulently and unlawfully write his acceptance to the said paperwriting to the tenor following, viz., Accepted, 20 Nov.-81, R. B., well knowing the firm of Smith and Co. to be fictitious; that the defendants procured the indorsement 'B. M'Carty' to be written on the same, and that the said Hevey, in pursuance of such fraudulent conspiracy, did utter the said paper-writing to one S. Read, as and for a good bill of exchange, truly drawn, &c., and accepted by the said Beatty as a person able to pay the said sum of 30%., in order to negotiate the same, and by means thereof did fraudulently obtain a gold watch, value twelve guineas, and 71. 88. in money; whereas, in truth, at the time of drawing, accepting, and uttering the said bill, there were no such persons as Smith and Co. in the business of bankers at Bath, and the said Beatty was not of sufficient ability to pay the said 30, they, the defendants, well knowing the same, &c., whereby they defrauded the said S. Read of the said goods and monies. The facts so charged being fully proved, the defendants were convicted. (w) (s) Per cur. Rex v. Edwards, 8 Mod. 320.

(t) Rex v. Armstrong, 1 Ventr. 304. 1 Lev. 62. Sid. 68.

(u) Reg. v. Best, 2 Lord Raym. 1167.

(v) Vol. 2, p. 630.

(w) Rex v. Hevey, 2 East, P. C. c. 19, s. 5, p. 858, note (a). Anonymous, 1782. MSS. Bayley, J., Rosc. Cr. Evid. 368.

Conspiracy to defraud tradesmen.

Conspiracy of brokers attending sales by auction.

Conspiring to fabricate

shares in addition to the limited number of which a joint stock company consists.

Conspiracy to barter unwholesome

wine.

In one case the defendants were convicted on an indictment which charged them with a conspiracy to cause themselves to be believed persons of large property for the purpose of defrauding tradesmen. (x)

Where in an action for slander it appeared that certain brokers were in the habit of agreeing together to attend sales by auction, and that one of them only should bid for any particular article, and that after the sale they should have a meeting consisting of themselves only, at another place, to put up to sale among themselves, at a fair price, the goods that each had bought at the auction, and that the difference between the price at which the goods were bought at the auction, and the fair price at this private resale, should be shared among them; Gurney, B., was of opinion that, as owners of goods had a right to expect at an auction that there would be an open competition from the public, if a knot of men went to an auction upon an agreement among themselves of the kind that had been described, they were guilty of an indictable offence, and might be tried for a conspiracy. (y)

A mock auction, with sham bidders, who pretend to be real bidders, for the purpose of selling goods at prices grossly above their worth, is an offence at common law; and persons aiding or abetting such a proceeding may be indicted for a conspiracy with intent to defraud. (2)

Where an indictment alleged that a certain joint stock company had been established, the capital of which was to consist of 2,000 shares, and charged the defendants with conspiring to fabricate a great number of other shares in addition to the said 2,000, and it appeared that the company had not been legally established; Abbott, C. J., was of opinion that if, in point of fact, a combination to the effect stated in the indictment were made out, such conduct, in point of law, constituted an offence punishable in a criminal way, notwithstanding the original imperfection of the company's formation. (a)

The selling unwholesome provisions is, as we have seen, an indictable offence; and the following case of bartering bad and unwholesome wine appears to have been treated as a conspiracy. The indictment charged that the defendants, falsely and deceitfully intending to defraud Thomas Chowne of divers of his goods, &c., together deceitfully bargained with him to barter, sell, and exchange a certain quantity of pretended wine, as good and true new Portugal wine, of him the said Fordenborough, for a certain quantity of hats of him the said Chowne; and that, upon such bartering, &c., the said Fordenborough pretended to be a merchant of London, and to trade as such in Portugal wines, when, in fact, he was no such merchant, nor traded as such in wines; and the said Mackarty, on such bartering, &c., pretended to be a broker of London, when, in fact, he was not, and that the said Chowne, giving credit to the said fictitious assumptions, personating, and deceits, did barter, sell, and exchange to Fordenborough, and did deliver to Mackarty, as the broker between the

(x) Rex v. Roberts, 1 Campb. 399. Lord Ellenborough, C. J. See Reg. v. Whitehouse, 6 Cox, C. C. 38, post.

(y) Levi v. Levi, 6 C. & P. 239.
(2) R. v. Lewis, 11 Cox, C. C. 404.
(a) Rex v. Mott, 2 C. & P. 521.

said Chowne and Fordenborough, for the use of Fordenborough, a certain quantity of hats, of a certain value, for so many hogsheads of the pretended new Portugal wine; and that Mackarty and Fordenborough, on such bartering, &c., affirmed that it was true new Lisbon wine of Portugal, and was the wine of Fordenborough, when, in fact, it was not Portugal wine, nor was it drinkable or wholesome, nor did it belong to Fordenborough, to the great deceit and damage of the said Chowne, and against the peace, &c. (b) It is observed of this indictment, which was for a cheat at common law, that though it did not charge that the defendants conspired eo nomine, yet it charged that they together, &c., did the acts imputed to them, which might be considered to be tantamount. (c) The case was considered as one of doubt and difficulty, but it seems that judgment was ultimately given for the crown, on the ground that the offence was conspiracy. (d)

A count alleged that the prisoners unlawfully did conspire by divers unlawful and fraudulent devices and contrivances, and by divers false pretences, unlawfully to win from A. Rhodes the sum of 21. 10s. of his money, and unlawfully to cheat him of the same; the prisoners and Rhodes were in a public house, and, in concert with the other two prisoners, J. Dewhurst placed a pen-case on the table, and left the room to get writing-paper. Whilst he was absent the other prisoners, Hudson and Smith, were alone with Rhodes, and Hudson took up the pen-case, and took the pen from it, placing a pin in the place of it, and put the pen he had taken out under the bottom of Rhodes' drinking-glass, and Hudson then proposed to Rhodes to bet Dewhurst, when he returned, that there was no pen in the pen-case. Rhodes was induced by Hudson and Smith to stake fifty shillings in a bet with Dewhurst that there was no pen in the pen-case, which money Rhodes placed on the table, and Hudson snatched up to hold. The pen-case was then turned up into Rhodes' hand, and another pen with the pin fell into his hand, and then the prisoners took his money. It was contended, on a case reserved, that this was a mere deceit not concerning the public, and that there was no false pretence on which any of the prisoners could have been convicted of obtaining money by false pretences. The prosecutor intended to cheat Dewhurst, and was a party to the fraud, and could not maintain this indictment. Pollock, C. B., ' We are all of opinion that the conviction is good. The expression "by false pretences" used in the count is not to be construed in the technical sense contended for by the counsel for the prisoners. We think that there was abundant evidence of a conspiracy to cheat. Though it be an ingredient in that conspiracy to induce the man who is cheated to think that he is cheating some one else, that does not prevent those who use that device from being amenable to punishment.' (e)

Conspiracy to cheat by a

fraudulent

wager.

Where a woman, living in the service of her master, conspired Conspiracy to

(b) Reg. v. Mackarty, 2 Lord Raym. 1179. East, P. C. c. 18, s. 5, p. 823. (c) 2 East, P. C. c. 18, s. 5, p. 824. (d) 2 East, ibid. And see vol. 2, p. 519.

(e) Reg. v. Hudson, Bell, C. C. 263. Channell, B., If the count had omitted the words "by false pretences," it would

[blocks in formation]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »