alleged that any unlawful means were had in order to get the money into the possession of the Treasurer. (a)

Conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose, in common between them. (b)

Whenever a joint participation in an enterprise is shewn, any act done in furtherance of the common design is evidence against all who were, at any time, concerned in it. (c) It is clearly unnecessary to prove that all the defendants, or any two of them, actually met together, and concerted the proceeding carried out. It is sufficient if the jury are satisfied, from their conduct, and from all the circumstances, that they were acting in concert. (d) But, in general, proof of concert and connection must be given before evidence is admissible of the acts or declarations of any person not in the presence of the prisoner. (e) The prosecutor may go into general evidence of the nature of the conspiracy before he gives evidence to connect the defendant with it. (ƒ)

The prisoners were indicted for conspiring to commit larceny. The evidence was that the two prisoners with another boy were seen by a policeman, to sit together on some door-step near a crowd, and when a well dressed person came up to see what was going on, one of the prisoners made a sign to the others, and two of them got up, and followed the person into the crowd. One of them was seen to lift the tail of the coat of a man as if to ascertain,

(a) Horseman v. Reg. 16 U. C. Q. B. 543.

(b) Mulcahy v. Reg. L. R. 3 E. & I. App. 317, per Willes, J.; R. v. Brissar, 4 Ea. 171, per Grose, J.

(c) Reg. v. Slavin, 17 U. C. C. P. 205; and see R. v. Shellard, 9 C. & P. 277; R. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. 126; 13 L. J. (M. J.) 131.

(d) Reg, v. Fellowes, 19 U. C. Q. B. 48; and see R. v. Parsons, 1 W. Bl. 322; R. v. Murphy, 8 C. & P. 297.

(e) 3 Russ. Cr. 161; The Queen's Case, 2 Brod. & B. 302; Reg. v. Jacobs, 1 Cox, C. C. 173; Reg. v. Duffield, 5 Cox, C. C. 404.

(f) R. v. Hammond, 2 Esp. 718.

if there was anything in his pocket, but making no visible attempt to pick the pocket; and to place a hand against the dress of a woman, but no actual attempt to insert the hand into the pocket was observed. Then they returned to the door-step, and resumed their seats. They repeated this two or three times, but there was no proof of any pre-concert other than this proceeding:Held, not to be sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, for to sustain a charge of conspiracy, there must be evidence of concert to do the illegal act, and the doing of an act not illegal is no evidence of a conspiracy to do an illegal act, there being no other evidence of the conspiracy than the act so done. (a)

In an indictment for conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences, it is not necessary to set out the pretences, as the gist of the offence is the conspiracy. (b) But where the conspiracy is to obtain money from certain persons, it is necessary to state who they are, for the cons piracy is to cheat them. (c) In a conspiracy to obtain goods, it is not necessary to specify the goods, or describe them, as in an indictment for stealing them, stating them as" divers goods" would be sufficient. (d)

Conspiracy is an offence at common law independently, of the 33 Ed. 1, c. 2. (e) A conspiracy to kidnap is a misdemeanor. (f)

A conspiracy to charge a man falsely with treason felony or misdemeanor is indictable: but it is not an indictable offence for two or more persons to consult and agree to prosecute a person, who is guilty, or against whom there are reasonable grounds of suspicion. (g)

(a) Reg. v. Taglor, 8 C. L. J. N. S. 54; 25 L. T. Reps. N. S. 75.

(b) Reg. v. Macdonald, 17 U. C. C. P. 638, per A. Wilson, J.; Rez v. Gill, B. & Ald. 204.

(c) Ib.

(d) Reg. v. Roy, 11 L. C. J. 92, per Drummond, J.

(e) Reg. v. Roy, 11 L. C. J. 92.

(f) Ex parte Blossom, 10 L. C. J. 41 per Badgley, J.

(g) R. v. Best, 1 Salk. 174, 2 Ld. Raym. 1167.

A conspiracy to impose pretended wine upon a man, as and for true and good Portugal wine, in exchange for goods is indictable. (a) So a conspiracy to defraud the public by means of a mock auction or an auction with sham bidders, who pretend to be real bidders for the purpose of selling goods at prices grossly above their worth. (b) So a conspiracy by a female servant and a man, whom she got to personate her master, and marry her, in order to defraud her master's relatives of a part of his property, after his death. (c) So a conspiracy to injure a man in his trade or profession; (d) so a conspiracy, by false and fraudulent representations, that a horse bought by one of the defendants from the prosecutor, was unsound, to induce him to accept a less sum for the horse than the agreed price. (e) So a conspiracy to raise the prices of the public funds by false rumours, as being a fraud upon the public; (f) so a conspiracy by persons, to cause themselves to be reputed men of property, in order to defraud tradesmen; (g) so a conspiracy to defraud by means of false representations of the solvency of a bank or other mercantile establishment; (h) so a conspiracy by traders, to dispose of their goods in contemplation of bankruptcy with intent, to defraud their creditors; (i) so a conspiracy to procure the defilement of a girl, (j) or a conspiracy to induce a woman, whether chaste or not, to become a common prostitute. (k)

But an indictment will not lie for a conspiracy to com

(a) R. v. Macarty, 2 Ld. Raym. 1179.

(b) R. v. Lewis, 11 Cox, 404. per Willes, J. (c) R. v. Taylor, 1 Leach, 47.

(d) R. v. Eccles, 1 Leach, 274.

(e) R. v. Carlile, 23 L. J. (M. C.) 109.

(f) Rex v. De Berenger, 3 M. & S. 67.

(g) R. v. Roberts, 1 Camp. 399.

(h) R. v. Esdaile, 1 F. & F. 213.

(i) R. v. Hall, 1 F. & F. 33.

(3) R. v. Mears, 2 Den. 79; 20 L. J. (M. C.)59.
(k) R. v. Howell, 4 F. & F. 160.

mit a mere civil trespass, (a) or for a conspiracy to deprive a man of an office under an illegal trading company. (b)

If, however, the parties conspire to obtain money by false pretences of existing facts, it seems to be no objection to the indictment for conspiracy that the money was to be obtained through the medium of a contract. (c) A conspiracy to commit a felony or misdemeanor is indictable. (d)

Even, before the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29, s. 50, although the evidence, in support of an indictment for conspiracy, shewed its object to have been felonious, or, even, that a felony was actually committed in the course of it, the defendants were not entitled to an acquittal on the ground that the misdemeanor had merged in the felony ; nor was, or is it, any ground for arresting the judgment, that, on the face of the indictment itself, the object of the conspiracy amounts to a felony, the gist of the offence charged being a conspiracy. (e)

From the very nature of conspiracy, it must be between two persons at least, and one cannot be convicted of it, unless he has been indicted for conspiring with persons to the jury unknown. (ƒ) A man and his wife cannot be indicted for conspiring alone, because they constitute one person in law. (g)

But one person alone may be tried for a conspiracy, provided the indictment charged him with conspiring with others who have not appeared, (h) or who are since dead. (i)

(a) R. v. Turner, 13 Ea. 228.

(b) R. v. Stratton, 1 Camp. 549 n.

(c) R. v. Kenrick, 5 Q. B. 49; Dav. & M. 208; 12 L. J. (M. C.) 135.

(d) R. v. Pollman, 2 Camp, 229 n.; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 938-9.

(e) Reg. v. Button, 11 Q. B. 929; 18 L. J. (M. C.) 19; R. v. Neale, 1 Den. 36,

1 C. & K. 591.

(f) Arch. Cr. Pldg. 942.

(g) Ib.

(h) R. v. Kinnersley, Str. 193.

(i) R. v. Nicholls, 2 Str. 1227.

Where the indictment charged that A. B., and C. conspired together, and with divers other persons to the jurors unknown, etc., and the jury found that A. had conspired with either B. or C., but they could not say which, and there was no evidence against any other persons than the three defendants, A. was held entitled to an acquittal. (a)

(a) R. v. Thompson, 16 Q. B. 832; 20 L. J. (M. C.) 183; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 942.