페이지 이미지

$ 2319. To debauch. So, generally, a conspiracy to debauch is indictable. Of this we have a conspicuous illustration in an English case where the prisoners induced the prosecutrix, a girl of fifteen years of age, who had left her place as a servant, to go to their house; one of them pretended that she had known the deceased parents of the prosecutrix, and saying that she should keep her until she got a place, and that they would both assist her in getting one. The prisoners were women of bad character, and the place where they resided was a house of illfame. It was false that either of them had known the parents of the prosecutrix, and they took no steps whatever to get her a place, but urged her to have recourse to prostitution. They introduced a man to her, and attempted, by persuasion, and holding out prospects of money, to induce her to consent to illicit connection with him. The prosecutrix refused to consent, and declared her intention of quitting the house; the prisoners refused to give her her clothes, and she left without them. It was held that the offence was conspiracy at common law as well as conspiracy under statute 12 & 13 Vict. c. 76.ro

In the last case it might be said that the appropriation of the girl's clothes, and her prior chastity, were essential constituents of the offence. The following case brought up the question separated from these differentia. The prisoners were found guilty upon an indictment charging them with conspiring to solicit, persuade, and procure an unmarried girl, of the age of seventeen, to become a common prostitute, and with having, in pursuance of that conspiracy, solicited, incited, and endeavored to procure her to become a common prostitute: It was held, that although common prostitution was not an indictable offence, it was unlawful, and the indictment therefore good, without averring that the prosecutrix was a chaste woman at the time of the conspiracy. 8

$ 2320. To produce an abortion. — In cases of this class, it is unnecessary to aver specifically in what stage of pregnancy was the mother, or what were the instruments to be used.t If the conspiracy was unexecuted, it is proper, as in all cases of unexecuted conspiracies, for the grand jury to aver that they are unable to set out the particulars of the plan, because it was never carried into execution. An averment of conspiracy to murder a living infant will not be sustained by evidence of conspiracy existing before the birth of the child, unless the conspiracy be proved to have been pursued subsequently to the birth. t1

r R. v. Mears, 1 Eng. L. & E. R. s R. v. Howell, 4 F. & F. 160. 581; 2 Den. C. C. 79; T. & M. 414; t Com. v. Demain, Bright. R. 441; 4 Cox C. C. 423; 1 Bennett & H. See ante, $ 1220-1221; Wh. Prec. Lead. Cas. 462.


§ 2321. To prevent interment of a dead body. An indictment lies at common law for a conspiracy to prevent the interment of a dead body.u 2. To prejudice the Public or the Government generally; as, for

Instance, by unduly elevating or depressing the Prices of Wages, or Toll, or of any Merchantable Commodity, or by defrauding the Revenue, or to impoverish or defraud any Individual or Class of Men by Combination of Workmen, &c.

$ 2322. To raise or depress the price of labor.— A combination is a conspiracy in law, whenever the act to be done has a necessary tendency to prejudice the public, or oppress individuals, by unjustly subjecting them to the power of the confederates, and giving effect to the purposes of the latter, whether of extortion or mischief.v Hence a conspiracy of operatives in any industry, to raise wages by entering into combination to coerce or cajole all other operatives in such industry from taking employment except at such wages as the conspirators may dictate, is indictable at common law. w

Even when journeymen shoemakers conspired together and fixed the price of making coarse boots, and entered into a combination that if a journeyman shoemaker should make such boots for a price below the rate thus fixed, he should pay a penalty of ten dollars; and if any master shoemaker employed a journeyman who had violated their rules, that they would refuse to work

11 R. v. Banks, 12 Cox C. C. 392. 353; 6 El. & Bl. 47; R. v. Bunn, 12

Matt. Ex. 71 ; Hood's Ex. 47. Cox C. C. 316. v Com. v. Carlisle, habeas corpus w R. v. Duffield, 5 Cox C. C. 404 ; before Gibson, J., Feb. 1821, 1 Jour. R. Ferguson, 2 Stark. 489 ; People Juris. 225 — Brightly. See Wh. Prec. v. Fisher, 14 Wendell, 9; State v. 656, &c., for forms; R. v. Bykerdike, Donaldson, 3 Vroom, 151 ; R. v. Bunn, 1 M. & R. 179. See R. v. Rowlands, 12 Cox C. C. 316; 1 M. & R. 179; 17 Q. B. 671 ; 21 L. J., M. C. 81; 5 but see Master Stevedores' Ass. v. Cox C. C. 436. See Hilton v. Eckers- Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 1. ley, 1 Jur. N. S. 874; 24 L. J. Q. B.

with him, and would quit his employment; and carried such combination into effect by leaving the employment of a master workman, in whose service was a journeyman who had violated their rules, and thus compelled the master shoemaker to discharge him; it was held in New York that the parties thus conspiring were guilty of a misdemeanor. x But this decision, as thus stated, goes too far, and cannot now be sustained. y Undoubtedly to absorb all of a particular class of the staples, or currency, or labor, in a community, so as to produce a dearth in either of these relations, and to lead to distress on one side and extortionate gains on the other, is an indictable offence. z And a fortiori is a conspiracy to effect either of these objects indictable. So, also, a conspiracy by unlawful means to compel a raising of wages, or prevent a fellow-workman from obtaining employment, is indictable. a But a mere combination between a particular group of workmen not to work for a particular master except for higher wages, when such a combination does not include the whole market, so as to prevent the employer from obtaining any other employees, or when the means adopted by those thus combining are not in themselves unlawful (e. g. intimidation through threats of injury), is not in itself the subject of criminal prosecution. If it were, there are few joint operations for money making which could escape indictment. The regulation of industry would be left, not to private enterprise and experience, but to the criminal courts. 6

* People v. Fisher, supra. ever, in his, her, or their opinion, the

y Master Stevedores' Ass. v. Walsh, wages are insufficient, or the treat2 Daly, (N. Y.) 1.

ment of such laborer or laborers, workz 1 Hawk. P. C. c., 80, § 3; 3 Inst. ingman or workingien, journeyman 196 ; 4 Bl. Com. 158 ; R. v. Webb, 14 or journeymen, by his, her, or their East, 406; R. v. Waddington, 1 East, employer is brutal or offensive, o 143 ; 7 Dane Ab. 39; Morris Run the continued labor by such laborer or Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co.68 Penn. laborers, workingman or workingmen, St. (18 P. F. Smith) 173.

journeyman or journeymen, rould be a Com. v. Hunt, 4 Metc. 111. contrary to the rules, regulations, or by

6 In Pennsylvania, by the act of laws of any club, society, or organizJune 14, 1872, “it shall be lawful for tion to which he, she, or they might be any laborer or laborers, workingman long, without subjecting any person or or workingmen, journeyman or jour persons, so refusing to work or labor, neymen, acting either as individuals to prosecution or indictment for conor as the member of any club, society, spiracy under the criminal laws of this or association, to refuse to work or commonwealth : Prorided, that this act labor for any person or persons when- shall not be held to apply to the mem



$ 2323. Hence, when universality of action is not alleged, it is necessary unlawful means should be averred.- An indictment which charged that the defendants, journeymen boot-makers, unlawfully, &c., confederated and formed themselves into a club, and agreed together not to work for any master boot-maker, or other persons, who should employ any workman or journeyman who should not be a member of said club, after notice given to such master or other persons to discharge such workman, was held to contain no sufficient averment of unlawful

purpose or means. An indictment for a conspiracy, it was said, which does not directly aver facts sufficient to constitute the offence, is not aided by matter which precedes or follows the direct averments; nor by qualifying epithets, as “unlawful, deceitful, pernicious,” &c., attached to the facts averred.c

Yet the means, when unlawful by statute, need not be given in detail. Thus in conspiracy to injure a tradesman, under 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, it is sufficient to allege that the defendants conspired, &c., by“ molesting,” “ using threats,” “ intimidating,” and “ intoxicating” workmen hired by the tradesman, in order to force them to depart from their work; and also that they conspired, &c., to “molest” and “obstruct” the tradesman and the workmen with the same object, and in order to force him to make an alteration in the mode of carrying on his trade; the words used being those employed in the statute, and it not being necessary to set out the means of molestation, intimidation, &c., more specifically.d It was also held, that counts framed upon this statute, which charged that the defendants conspired, &c., by “ molesting” and “obstructing," and by “ using threats and intimidations," to obstruct such workmen as might be willing to be hired by the tradesman, and to prevent them from hiring themselves to him, were sufficient.

To keep an operative out of employment. - On the same reaber or members of any club, society, laws, of any person or persons who or organization, the constitution, by- shall in any way, hinder persons who laws, rules and regulations of which desire to labor for their employers, are not in strict conformity to the con- from so doing, or other persons from stitution of the State of Pennsylvania, being employed as laborers.” and to the Constitution of the United c Com. v. Hunt, 4 Met. 111. States: Provided, that nothing herein d R. v. Rowlands, 9 Eng. Law & contained shall prevent the prosecu- Eq. 287; 17 Q. B. 671; 5 Cox C. C. tion and punishment, under existing 436.

soning is a conspiracy to prevent an operative from obtaining any employment in his business indictable. e

$ 2324. To engros8 any particular business staple. — Hence, also, as has been seen, it is indictable to combine to engross under one control any particular business staple (e. g. wheat, gold, cotton, coals), so as to force from the community its purchase at exorbitant prices.f

Thus a combination between miners in a particular market, controlling the coal in that market, to hold up the price of coal in such market, was held in Pennsylvania, in 1871, to be indictable at common law. “When competition is left free," said Agnew, J., “individual error or folly will generally find a correction in the conduct of others. But here is a combination of all the companies operating in the Blossburg and Barclay mining regions, and controlling their entire productions. They have combined together to govern the supply and the price of coal in all the markets from the Hudson to the Mississippi rivers, and from Pennsylvania to the lakes. This combination has a power in its confederated form which no individual action can confer.

The influence of a lack of supply or a rise in the price of an article of such prime necessity cannot be measured. It permeates the whole mass of the community, and leaves few of its members untouched by its withering blight. Such a combination is more than a contract; it is an offence.". g

To suppress competition at a public auction. — So if brokers agree together, before a sale by auction, that one only of them should bid for each article sold, and that all articles thus bought by any of them should be sold again among themselves at a fair price, and the difference between the auction price and the fair price divided among them: this is a conspiracy for which they are indictable. h

$ 2325. Other forms of conspiracy to cheat the public. So an indictment holds for a conspiracy to raise the price of the public funds by false rumors, as being a fraud upon the public;i for a conspiracy by persons to cause themselves to be reputed men of

e R. v. Hewitt, 5 Cox C. C. 162. Coal Co. 68 Pa. St. (18 P. F. Smith) f R. v. Norris, 2 Ld. Ken. Notes of 173. Cases, 300. Ante, $ 2322.

h Levi r. Levi, 6 C. & P. 239. g Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay i R. v. De Berenger, 3 M. & S. 67.

« 이전계속 »