solemnize a marriage. Conspiracy to procure a marriage with a minor by a license obtained by a false oath. Conspiracy to seduce a young woman. with another man that he should personate her master, and in that character should solemnize a marriage with her, which was accordingly done, for the purpose of afterwards raising a specious title to the property of the master; the gist of the indictment was for the conspiracy, and the conviction was founded on that ground. And it was considered in this case that, though no actual injury was proved, yet it was the province of the jury to collect, from all the circumstances of the case, whether there was not an intention to do a future injury to the person whose name was assumed. (ƒ) And a conviction has taken place upon an indictment, which charged that M. A. Wrench was a person of ill-fame and bad character, and a common prostitute, and that W. B. Serjeant was an infant within the age of 21 years, and that M. A. W. and P. D. and S. J., intending to defraud the said W. B. S. of his property, conspired for the purpose aforesaid to procure a marriage to be solemnized between the said W. B. S. and the said M. A. W., by means of a false oath to be taken by the said M. A. W., and by divers false pretences, and without the consent of the mother of the said W. B. S., his father being dead, and that the said M. A. W. and P. D. and S. J., in pursuance of the said conspiracy, did prevail on the said W. B. S. to consent to marry the said M. A. W., and by means of such persuasion, and by means of a false oath taken by the said M. A. W., in order to obtain a license for the solemnization of marriage between the said W. B. S. and the said M. A. W., did cause the said W. B. S. to marry the said M. A. W., and a marriage by such license was accordingly solemnized between them, without the leave of the mother of the said W. B. S., who then was such infant as aforesaid. (g) The seduction of a young woman may be attended with such circumstances as to be indictable as a conspiracy. A case is reported where Lord Grey and others were charged, by an information at common law, with conspiring and intending the ruin of the Lady Henrietta Berkeley, then a virgin unmarried, within the age of eighteen years, one of the daughters of the Earl of Berkeley (she being under the custody, &c., of her father), and soliciting her to desert her father, and to commit whoredom and adultery with Lord Grey, who was the husband of another daughter of the Earl of Berkeley, sister of the Lady Henrietta, and to live and cohabit with him; and, further, the defendants were charged, that in prosecution of such conspiracy, they took away the Lady Henrietta at night from her father's house and custody, and against his will, and caused her to live and cohabit in divers secret places with Lord Grey, to the ruin of the lady and to the evil example, &c. The defendants were found guilty, though there was no proof of any force, but, on the contrary, it appeared that the lady, who was herself examined as a witness, was desirous of leaving her father's house, and concurred in all the measures taken for her departure and subsequent concealment. It was not shown that See (f) Rex v. Taylor, 1 Leach, 37. 2 fortune may be indicted for a conspiracy. (g) Rex v. Serjeant, R. & M. N. P. R. 352. any artifice was used to prevail on her to leave her father's house; but the case was put upon the ground that there was a solicitation and enticement of her to unlawful lust by Lord Grey, who was the principal person concerned, the others being his servants, or persons acting by his command, and under his control. (h) A count charged that the prisoners did between themselves conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together knowingly and designedly to procure, by false representations, false pretences, and other fraudulent means, J. C., a poor child, under the age of twenty-one years, to wit, of the age of fifteen years, to have illicit carnal connection with a man whose name is to the jurors unknown, and, upon a case reserved, the judges were unanimously of opinion that this count charged an indictable offence at common law. (i) A count alleged that the prisoners unlawfully conspired, &c., to solicit, persuade and procure, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy did unlawfully solicit, incite, and endeavour to procure L. M., an unmarried girl, within the age of eighteen years, to become and be a common prostitute, and to commit whoredom and fornication for lucre and gain with men; and it was urged, in arrest of judgment, that the count was bad, as it did not aver that the girl was chaste; the fact of a loose woman committing fornication was not punishable by law; but it was held that the count was good, as it charged a conspiracy to bring about an illegal condition of things. (j) Conspiracy to carry away and marry a female under without the An indictment has been held to lie against several persons for conspiring to carry away a young female under the age of twentyone from the custody of her parents and instructors, and afterwards to marry her to one of the offenders, contrary to the the provisions of the 4 & 5 Ph. & M. c. 8, ss. 3 & 4, and also for twenty-one, conspiring to commit the capital felony (under the 3 Hen. 7, c. 2, consent of her s. 1) of taking away an heiress against her will, and afterwards parents. marrying her to one of the defendants. The young lady, who was the heiress of a gentleman of large fortune, and was only fifteen years of age, had been placed under the care of some ladies at Liverpool, for the purpose of finishing her education, and was induced to leave their house by means of a fictitious letter, fabricated by the defendants, who conveyed her to Gretna Green, where she was induced by means of false representations to go through the ceremony of a Scotch marriage, and to consent to become the wife of one of the defendants: and the defendants were convicted. (k) A case is reported where several persons were convicted on an Conspiracy to indictment which charged them with conspiring to impoverish impoverish a one H. B., a tailor, and to prevent him, by indirect means, from trade. (h) Rex v. Lord Grey, 3 St. Tri. 519. 1 East, P. C. c. 11, s. 10, p. 460. See also Rex v. Delaval, 3 Burr. 1434. (i) Reg. v. Mears, 2 Den. C. C. 79. The indictment also contained two counts framed to charge an attempt to commit the offence created by the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 76; but no opinion was expressed as to these counts. See vol. 1, p. 877. (j) Reg. v. Howell, 4 F. & F. 160, Bramwell, B., and the Recorder. (k) Rex v. Wakefield, 2 Lew. 1. The marriage being in Scotland, an indictment for felony under the 3 Hen. 7, c. 2, s. 1, could not have been supported, and there was no evidence to support an indictment under the 4 & 5 Ph. & M. c. 8, s. 4. See vol. 1, p. 885. An indictment was preferred upon the 4 & 5 Ph. & M. c. 8, s. 3, but no judgment given upon it. man in his Conspiracy to cheat creditors. Bankers publishing false balance sheets. Conspiracy to cheat by false statements of the profits of a trade. An indictment was once held not to lie for conspiring to trespass. carrying on his trade. (1) This, however, appears to have been considered as a conspiracy in restraint of trade, and so far a conspiracy to do an unlawful act affecting the public. (m) If traders conspire to defeat their creditors by disposing of their goods in contemplation of bankruptcy, they are guilty of a conspiracy at common law. (n) So if bankers combine to deceive and defraud their shareholders by publishing false balance sheets, they are indictable for a conspiracy. (0) Where the prisoners were indicted for a conspiracy to cheat one Edwards, and the case was that the prisoners had made false representations as to the amount of profits of a business carried on by one of them, and thereby induced Edwards to enter into partnership with one of them; it was held, that they were liable to be indicted for the conspiracy, although no action might lie for the false representation, as it was not in writing, so as to satisfy the 9 Geo. 4, c. 14, s. 16. (p) An indictment will not lie for conspiring to commit a civil trespass upon property, by agreeing to go, and by going into, a preserve for hares, the property of another, for the purpose of snaring commit a civil them, though it be alleged to be done in the night-time, and that the defendants were armed with offensive weapons, for the purpose of opposing resistance to any endeavours to apprehend or obstruct them. And Lord Ellenborough, C. J., in pronouncing the judgment of the court, said, 'I should be sorry that the cases in conspiracy against individuals, which have gone far enough, should be pushed still farther. I should be sorry to have it doubted whether persons agreeing to go and sport upon another's ground, in other words, to commit a civil trespass, should be thereby in peril of an indictment for an offence which would subject them to infamous punishment.' (q) It may be observed that it was not stated in the indictment that the weapons were dangerous, nor that the defendants conspired to go, &c., with strong hand. But this case is overruled. An indictment will lie for a conspiracy to But this case is overruled by Reg. v. Rowlands, (r) where Lord Campbell, C. J., said, 'I have no doubt whatever that it was wrongly decided. Going into the prosecutor's close against his will, armed with offensive weapons for the purpose of opposing any persons who should endeavour to apprehend, obstruct, or prevent them, would in itself be an indictable offence; and conspiring to commit such an offence must be an indictable conspiracy.' It is now settled that persons may be guilty of a conspiracy to defraud another in the fraudulent sale of a horse. Thus where the (1) Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach, 274. See per (m) By Lord Ellenborough, C. J., in (n) Reg. v. Hall, 1 F. & F. 33, Wat- (0) Reg. v. Esdaile, 1 F. & F. 213. (q) Rex r. Turner, 13 East, 228, 231. argument, viz. that 'all the cases in conspiracy proceed upon the ground that the object of the combination is to be effected by some falsity.' The facts stated in this case would constitute an offence within the 9 Geo. 4, c. 69, vol. 1, p. 621, and it is conceived that a conspiracy to commit an offence within that statute would be indictable, although not carried into effect. See Rex v. Wakefield, supra. See also the observations on this case in Deac. Game L. 175. C. S. G. (r) 17 Q. B. 671. horse. defendants conspired to make a false representation that horses cheat in the were the property of a private person and not of a horse dealer, sale of a and were quiet to ride and drive, and thereby induced a gentleman to buy them at a large price, they were held to have been rightly convicted on a count which charged them with conspiring by false pretences and subtle means to cheat the gentleman of his money. (s) part of the horse by tending that it was un sound. An indictment against Brown and Carlisle for conspiracy alleged A conspiracy that one Sibson sold to Brown a mare for 391., and that the pri- to defraud of soners, whilst the said sum was unpaid, conspired by false and price of a fraudulent representations that the said mare was unsound of her wind, and that she had been examined by a veterinary surgeon, who had pronounced her a roarer, and that Brown had sold her for 271. to induce Sibson to receive a much less sum in payment for the said mare than Brown had agreed to pay Sibson for the same, and thereby to cheat Sibson of a large part of the said sum agreed to be paid for the said mare. The mare had been sold by Sibson to Brown for the price as alleged, and Sibson had agreed to trust Brown for the price till after a fair. The prisoners afterwards conspired to send a false account of the mare to Sibson, and thereby to get him to forego part of the agreed price; and, in pursuance of this conspiracy, they sent a letter to Sibson, stating that the mare was unsound of her wind and had been examined by a veterinary surgeon, and he had pronounced her a roarer. In consequence of this letter Sibson saw Carlisle, who stated that he had examined the mare and that she was unsound, which he knew to be false. Sibson afterwards saw Brown, who told him that he had sold the mare for 271. only (which was false), and persuaded him to receive that sum in satisfaction of his claim, but no receipt or other discharge was given. It was contended that no indictable offence had been proved or charged; for that the facts proved and alleged did not and could not alter the position of Sibson, as the payment of a smaller sum was no satisfaction of the larger sum, for which he had sold the mare, and he might afterwards enforce the payment of the residue. But, upon a case reserved, it was held that the indictment was sustainable, and that the facts given in evidence did sustain it. The substance of the charge is that the prisoners conspired to use unlawful means, namely, false representations, to induce the prosecutor to forego a part of his claim; and there is no force in the argument that, because the prisoners did not by means of their false representations alter the right of the prosecutor to his full claim, the indictment is not sustainable; since in no case where a change is made in the possession of a chattel through a fraud is the property altered. It is not necessary that the fraud should be successful. The offence here charged and proved comes within the legal definition of a conspiracy. (t) will not lie for conspiring to deprive a man of the office An indictment cannot be supported for a conspiracy to deprive An indictment a man of the office of secretary to an illegal unincorporated trading company. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said that the society being certainly illegal, to deprive an individual of an office in it could not be treated as an injury: and that when the prosecutor was (s) Reg. v. Kenrick, 5 Q. B. 49. See this case, ante, vol. 2, p. 557. (t) Reg. v. Carlisle, Dears. C. C. 337; Reg. v. Read, 6 Cox, C. C. 134. of secretary to an illegal trading company. Conspiracy to sink a foreign ship. Conspiracy by Complaint that members of House of Lords to deceive the had conspired House. secretary to the society, instead of having an interest which the law would protect, he was guilty of a crime. (u) The prisoner, a foreigner, was indicted for conspiring at Ramsgate with the owner, the master, and the mate of a ship, to cast away the ship, with intent to prejudice the underwriters. The ship was a Prussian merchant vessel, named the Alma, and arrived at Ramsgate, and afterwards sailed thence, and she was in six days' time scuttled and sunk by the prisoner and others. The prisoner was apprehended, and made statements implicating himself, the captain, and the mate. He said that the mate had said in Ramsgate that the ship would never reach her place of destination, and spoke of the making away of the ship in an unlawful manner; and when the prisoner said, 'Then we had better sink her here at once on the bar,' the mate replied that was too close to land to make away with the ship in an unlawful manner, or to sink her. Martin, B., told the jury, 'The ship was a foreign ship, and she was sunk by foreigners far from the English coast, and so out of the jurisdiction of our courts. But the conspiracy in this country to commit the offence is criminal by our law. And this case does not raise the point which arose in Reg. v. Bernard, 1 F. & F. 240, as to a conspiracy limited to a criminal offence to be committed abroad. For here, if the prisoner was party to the conspiracy at all, it was not so limited; for it was clearly contemplated that the ship might be destroyed off the bar at Ramsgate, which would be within the jurisdiction. The offence of conspiracy would be committed by any persons conspiring together to commit an unlawful act to the prejudice or injury of others, if the conspiracy was in this country, although the overt acts were abroad. The question is, was it agreed by and between the prisoner and any other person at Ramsgate that the ship should be destroyed, whether at sea or in port?' (v) A partnership, consisting of the prisoner and L. carried on business abroad. The prisoner gave notice under the articles of partnership to dissolve the partnership. An account of the partnership property had to be taken on the dissolution, and upon such account, after payment of partnership liabilities, the partnership assets were to be divided between the prisoner and L. The prisoner agreed with W. and P. to forge documents, and to make false entries in the partnership books and accounts, so as to make it appear that debts existed and were owing which did not exist, so as to reduce the amount devisable between the partners on the dissolution, with intent to cheat and defraud L. Held, that the prisoner was rightly convicted of conspiring with W. and P. to defraud L. (w) Where complaint was made before a magistrate that certain members of the House of Lords had conspired to deceive the House by stating that a charge of falsehood contained in a petition presented to the House was false, though they knew it to be true, in order to prevent the prayer of the petition from being granted, to the injury of the petitioner :-Held, that the complaint did not charge an indictable offence, as an agreement by members of either (u) Rex v. Stratton, cor. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., 1 Campb. 549, in the notes. See Reg. v. Hunt, 8 C. & P. 642, vol. 2, p. 366. (v) Reg. v. Kohn, 4 F. & F. 68. (w) R. v. Warburton, 40 L. J. M. C. 22. |