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.(g) 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.(h) 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.(i) 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.(j) 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.(k) It should seem that in 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. (1) 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. (m) 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.(n) Conspiracy to charge a man father of a bastard child, with being the The frauds practised by swindlers may sometimes be indictable Conspiracies as conspiracies. In a case which has been mentioned in a former to defraud. part of this Work, (o) 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 Hevey's case: Conspiring to make a fraudulent accept ance of a bill of exchange. Roberts's case. the defendants, John Hevey, Richard Beatty, and Bryan 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 stile 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 paper-writing 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 307., in order to negotiate the same, and by means thereof did fraudulently obtain a gold watch, value twelve guineas, and 71. 8s. 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 301., 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. (p) In a case of later occurrence, the defendants were convicted Conspiracy to 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.(g) defraudtrades men. Conspiracy to Macarty and bourgh's case. 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 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 Fordenbourgh, for a certain quantity of hats of him the said Chowne; and that, upon such bartering, &c. the said Fordenbourgh 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 Macarty, 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 Fordenbourgh, and did deliver to Macarty, as (p) Rex v. Hevey, Beatty, and M'Carty, 1782. 6. p. 858. note (a). 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. (q) Rex v. Roberts and others, 1808. cor. Ld. Ellenborough, C. J., ICampb. 399. the broker between the said Chowne and Fordenbourgh, for the Conspiracy to marriage. solemnize a seduce a young woman. The seduction of a young woman may be attended with such Conspiracy to 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 shewn (r) Reg. v. Macarty and Fordenbourgh, 2 Ld. Raym. 1179. 2 East. P. C. c. 18. s. 5. p. 823. (u) Ante, 553. (x) Rex v. Taylor and Robinson, 1 Leach 37. 2 East. P. C. c. 20. s. 5. p. 1010. (s) 2 East. P. C. c. 18. s. 5. p. 824. Conspiracy to impoverish a man in his trade. But an indict trespass. Turner's case. that 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 controul.(y) A case is reported where several persons were convicted on an indictment which charged them with conspiring to impoverish one H. B., a tailor, and to prevent him, by indirect means, from carrying on his trade. (3) 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. (a) In a late case it was holden, that an indictment will not lie for ment will not conspiring to commit a civil trespass upon property, by agreeing lie for conspiring to to go, and by going into, a preserve for hares, the property of ancommit a civil other, for the purpose of snaring 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 indivi"duals, which have gone far enough, should be pushed still far"ther. 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 in"dictment for an offence which would subject them to infamous punishment."(b) 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. Nor will an indictment lie for a conspiracy to cheat and defraud a man by selling him an unsound horse. Pywell's case. 66 In a later case the defendants were charged by the indictment with conspiring to cheat and defraud General Maclean, by selling him an unsound horse. It appeared that one of the defendants, named Pywell, had advertised the sale of horses, undertaking to warrant their soundness; and that, upon an application by General Maclean, at Pywell's stables, another of the defendants stated to him that he had lived with the owner of a horse which he then shewed to the general; that he knew the horse to be perfectly sound, and, as the agent of Pywell, would warrant him to be sound. General Maclean purchased the horse, taking a receipt, in which the horse was mentioned as warranted sound, and to be returned if not approved of within a week. It was discovered very soon after the sale, that the animal was nearly worthless. Upon these facts Lord Ellenborough, C. J., was of opinion, that the case did not assume the shape of a conspiracy, and that the evidence would not warrant any proceeding beyond that of an action on the warranty, for the breach of a civil contract. And his Lordship said that, if this were to be considered as an indictable offence, then, instead of the actions which had been brought on warranties, the defendants ought to have been indicted as cheats and that no indictment, in a case like this, could be maintained, without evidence of concert between the parties to effectuate a fraud. The defendants were accordingly acquitted. (c) It was ruled that an indictment could not be supported for a conspiracy to deprive 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 secretary to the society, instead of having an interest which the law would protect, he was guilty of a crime. (d) The several statutes relating to the combinations of workmen were repealed by the 5 Geo. 4. c. 95. But the statute 6 Geo. 4. c. 129. recites that the provisions of the former act had not been found effectual, and that such combinations are injurious to trade and commerce, dangerous to the tranquillity of the country, and especially prejudicial to the interests of all who are concerned in them, and that it was expedient to make further provision, as well for the security and personal freedom of individual workmen in the disposal of their skill and labour, as for the security of the property and persons of masters and employers, and for that purpose to repeal the said act, and to enact other provisions and regulations in lieu thereof; and then repeals the said act of 5 Geo. 4. c. 95. It then provides that various statutes therein mentioned, and all enactments in any other statutes or acts which, immediately before the passing of the said recited act of the 5 Geo. 4. were in force throughout, or in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, relative to combinations to obtain an advance of wages, or to lessen or alter the hours or du ration of the time of working, or to decrease the quantity of work, or to regulate or controul the mode of carrying on any manufacture, trade, or business, or the management thereof, or relative to combinations to lower the rate of wages, or to increase or alter the hours or duration of the time of working, or to increase the quantity of work, or to regulate or controul the mode of carrying on any manufacture, trade, or business, or the management thereof, or relative to fixing the amount of the wages of labour, or relative to the obliging workmen not hired to enter into work, and every enactment enforcing or extending the application of any of the said several enactments so repealed, shall notwithstanding the repeal of the said recited act of the 5 Geo. 4. still be and remain. repealed, except only so far as the same or any of them may have repealed any former act or enactment. The third section enacts, "that from and after the passing of this act, if any person shall, by violence to the person or property, or "by threats or intimidation, or by molesting or in any way ob"structing another, force, or endeavour to force any journeyman, (c) Rex v. Pywell and Others, 1 Stark. R. 402. (d) Rex v. Stratton and Others, cor. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., 1 Campb |