Case ID: serg-rawl_8/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gibson J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Commonwealth against M'Kisson and another.
    conspiracy to overt act need te setforth. In an in-
    In Error.
    THE record of this cause, returned on a writ of error to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lycoming county, shewed that an indictment was found by the grand jury against the défendants in error, containing two counts, the first of which set forth, that on or about the fust of June, 1821, Jacob Shoemaker, jun. purchased and obtained the possession of a heifer from Arthur M* Kisson s that some time in the month of July following, the heifer broke out and strayed from the enclosure of Shoemaker, and returned to the farm of Ml Kisson ; that M‘Kisson and William Rea, the other defendant, well knowing that the heifer was the property of Shoemaker, on the 3d of August, 1821, “wickedly and unlawfully did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, by means of false pretence, and representations of and concerning the said heifer, to cheat and defraud the said Jacob Shoemaker, jun.; that is to say ; the said Arthur M'Kisson and the said William Rea, on the said 3d day of August, at the house of, 8cc. falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully represented and declared to the said Jacob Shoemaker, jun. that the said heifer had on the day preceding, viz. on the second day of August, 182'1, broken one of her legs, and that the said heifer would never be of any use to the said Jacob Shoemaker, jun. when in fact and in truth, neither of the legs of the said heifer was or had been broken on the second day of August aforesaid, but on the contrary, the said Arthur M1- Kisson had on the said second day of August, sold and disposed of the said heifer, so being the property of the said Jacob Shoemaker, jun. to some person unknown, where by the said Jacob Shoemaker jun. tv as cheated and defrauded out of the said heifer, of the value of twelve dollars, to the great damage,” &c.
    The second count charged, that “ the said Arthur MlKisson and William Rea, did unlawfully, fraudulently, and deceitfully, conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, to cheat and defraud the said Jacob Shoemaker, jun. of the aforesaid heifer, of the value of twelve dollars, to the great damage,” &c.
    A motion having been made by the prisoners’ counsel to quash the indictment, the Court of Quarter Sessions were of opinion, “ that the assertion of a falsehood which common prudence could guard against, is not indictable; that to constitute the crime ot a cheat, it is necessary that some false tokens should be used, and that no indictable of-fence is laid in this indictment.”
    
      Anthony, for the Commonwealth, said,
    that a conspiracy to cheat, was a substantive crime. 3 Chit. C. L. 757. If a lie be told by one with a view to cheat another, it is not indictable, but if two conspire together and tell a lie for the purpose of practising a cheat, it is indictable. All combinations to injure the person or property of another are indictable. The offence consists in the unlawful agreement, and it is sufficient to lay a conspiracy, without any overt act. 3 Chit. C. L. 904, 5, 6. 1 Hawk, c. 72, s. 2. 2 East. C. L. 816. 823. Rex v. Wheatly, 2 Burr. 1128. Rex v. Rispal, 3 Burr. 1320. Collins v. Commonwealth, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 220. Op. of Gibson J. 223. The precedent, of an indictment for this offence, given in 3 Chit. C. L. 951, sets forth that the parties charged, “ did unlawfully, fraudulently and deceitfully, conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, to cheat and defraud the said A. B. of his monies, to the great damage of the said A. B.” &c.
    
      Burnside, contra,
    answered, that the indictment charged no act in which the public were concerned, and a private in-injury was not the subject of an indictment. A conspiracy to enter a man’s field and cut his grain, certainly would not be indictable, and the act now complained of, is of precisely the same nature. In an indictment for a cheat, the false tokens must be shewn. Style, 145. 2 East. C. L. 816.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gibson J. —

It is unnecessary to express an opinion on the first count of this indictment, as it is clear the second is good. The authorities relied on by the counsel for the défendants, relate to indictments for actual cheating; not ter conspiracies to cheat. But between these, there is a plain difference. Where the crime is consummated, there must have been overt acts, as well as the employment of false tokens ; and as these are essentially constituent parts of the offence, they must be set out; but in conspiracy, the confederating is the gist of the offence, and as no overt act is necessary to complete it, none need be laid; and- this much was determined in Collins v. The Commonwealth. But there may be confederacies which are lawful; and you must therefore set forth some object of the confederates which it would be unlawful for them to attain either singly, or which, if lawful singly, it would be dangerous to the public to permit to be attained by the combination of individual means. For it is the object that imparts to the confederacy its character of guilt or innocence ; and of the nature of such object, and the bearing which the various kinds of, it may have on the question in different cases, it is at present necessary to say no more, than that where it is the doing of an act which would be indictable, it will undoubtedly render the confederacy criminal. But in stating the object, it is unnecessary to state the means by which it was to be accomplished, or the acts that were to be done in pursuance of the original design; they may, in fact, not have been agreed on. You need not set forth more of the object than is necessary to shew it, from its general nature, to be unlawful; for that is1 all that is necessary to determine the character of what is, in truth, essentially and exclusively the crime — the confederate' ing together: and this is proved by the precedents produced on the part of the Commonwealth. The judgment is reversed, and the record remitted to the Court below.

Judgment reversed, and record remitted to the Court'* below, with orders to proceed on the indictment»