The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-06-30

RESPONSIBLE for the acts OF tHF t"F
the said act - doCe IN pursuance OF inc
original understanding. or ~ furtherante
If the common design. And the least dc
vrsa Of consent or collision between
.~narties TO an illegal transaction makes tn
acts az one the acts Of the others Where
two or more persons are engaged IN l"e
rurSuit OF an unlawful object. all having
he same object in view. and IN pursuit
Of that common purpose one or them laAG
life under such circumstances q MAKES
It murder IN the second degree. II Wit
amount TO murder in the second degree Il
the others also. And Il viii Be lmme-
terial at what time the party agree!
with others - carry out the unlawful oh
ject. provided he did 20 before The as.
compl1hment Of said illegal purpose ms
law beng that every one who agrees WITH
others to effect a common illegal object
Is considered in law a. n party TO eNeIy
act which either may afterwards 10 ~
furtherance 81 the common design. The
responsibility IL each conSpiTator for the
acts ii lis associates done pursuant " or
in furtherarce Of n common design as Wei
as for the consequence Of U ats *
tends only TO such acts as are naturally
and necessarily done pursuant ~ or III
furtherance Of the common design. and
such consequences as necessarily result II
therefrom Or follow a. a natural aud
probable result thereof.
when tie object Of a conspiracy has
been either accomplished or abandontd
any subsequent act or declaration q 4
constructor Is evidence only against h,n
self. and is not evidence against ms GO.
ccnspiratOrS. but after a criminal cor.
spiracy is formed every act and declara-
ton of any one Of the conspHatoTS done
or made in furtherance Of the common
purpose prior to the accomplishment or
the abandonment OF said unlawful pun
pose is evidence against all Of his co-con
spirators.
In determining whether or not there
was a conspiracy and who composed It.
you can take into consideration any act
or declaration Of a defendant established
by the evidence against the defendant do
ing the act or making the declaration. but
you cannot consider such acts or declare
ton against the other defendant unless
made or said in the presence OF that de-
PENDANT.
ct is not necessary to constitute 4 con
spiracy that the alleged conspiratorS
should have come together and agreed in
express terms to unite for a common OBJ
iect-a mutual implied understanding to
do an unlawful act is sufficient. 1t is not
necessary in order that the fact OF Il coz
spiracy may be established that 1T shoull
be proven by evidence of an express
agreement or compact between the alleged
conspirators or by direct evidence Of any
agreement or compact. Conspiracies from
their nature are usually entered into IN
secret, and may be proved by circum
~stantial as well as by direct evidence.
1T requires an agreement between tHo
or more persons to form a conspiracy.
One person done is not sufficient.
"Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt
from the evidence that these defendants
or, they with Others or any or more OF
them with others went to Jones' room by
~pre-concert for the ommon purpose eth
CT Of running him out of town or whip
ping him and to kill or to infict serious
bodily harm upon him if he resisted them,
or that they went there by p~re-conccrt
for the common purpose of either running
him out of town or whipping him or both
without intent to Kill him or inhict some
serious bodily harm upon him-if so the
court charges you that this would nave
been a conspiracy between tAe parties anu
thus combined themselves together to do
an unlawful act and for an unlawful pur-
pose. They did not have a right to run
him out of town or whip him, even though
you be satisfied that he was bedding and
associating with negro women.
do you find from the evidence that
there was a conspiracy entered into to
do an unlawful act towards Jones as here
tOfore explained. If so do you further
find beyond a reasonable doubt from the
evidence that these defendants or any one
or more Of them were parties to said CON
spiracy-that is, were they parties to
coiI ~ f,,1 ar,noy,or+ ne +lA,o -
one) when it was first entered into, or did
they afterWard unite themselves with
others, who originated it, and act in con
cert with them in pursuit of an unlawful
object.
IF so, do you further find beyond a
reasonable doubt from the evidence that
parties to said conspiracy broke into Jones
room and pursuance Of said original under
d~erstandlng or in furtlerance Of said com
mon purpose shot and killed him. If you
50 find tho court charges you that all
prties to said conspiracy who continued
to be parties thereto up to the time OF the
killing would be guilty Of murder in the
degree. And if you find beyond d reason
able doubt from the evidence that these
defendants or any one or more Of them
were at the time of said killing parties
to such conspiracy and that Jones was
h'iN' " lIit vi ii III
standing or IN furtherance of the common
design then YOU will convict such defer
dant or defendants, as aforesaid, of muir
Ger IN the second degree.
If the state has failed to show you
beyond q reasonable doubt from the evi
dence that there was an agreement to do
an unlawful act as heretofore explained
the court charges you that before convict
;ng any one OF the defendants that the
burden would be upon the state to satisfy
the jury beyond a reasonable doubt from
the evidence that one or more of these
defendants shot and killed Jones and
that the Others we're present aiding and
a~bettlng the one or the ones doing the
killing. For unless there was conspiracy
10 do an unlawful act to Jones then ONLY
the man who killed Jones and tho..
any present, aiding ana abetting him IN
the killing would be guilty. If there was
no conspiracy ard the jury has a reason
able doubt as to who fired the fatal shot