The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-18

| sec. 10. EVERY man mas right 10 De
| informed OF the accusation against
him." 10. IL. These truths are OF
the essence of civil liberty. They are
not TO be explained away 10 meet the
| demand for speedy trials and swift
| punishment mo man shall be put to
| answer any criminal charge .
but by indictment. etc. We find moth
ing here of bills of particulars"
| drawn up, after indictment found. by
prosecuting officers to aid defective
oills. or bills in which. if the charge
vas set forth in a full and specific
manner, could never have received the
endorsement of a grand jury. "Bills
of particulars are suggestive of IN
formations" which became odious be-
cause of the oppressive use made of
them by officers of the crown in the
prosecution of persons charged with
)tTense. When grand iuries would not
III in such prosecutions "Informa-
lions were reSOrted to. They recall
the days of constructive treasons y
Men were hung, drawn and chartered
FOR imagining the death of the king
They recall the time when Titus Oates
5wore away the lives of innocent men
:narged with being members of an i'm
2ginary Popish plot
"A criminal conspiracy is defined TO
De an agreement of two or more per-
sons to do an unlawful act or to do
lawful act by unlawful means. Shaw
2. j., in Com. VS.. Hunt, supra, saws:
Without attempting to review or rec
,ncils all the cases, we are of the
opinion that as a general descriptions
houph perhaps not a precise or ac--
;urate definition, a conspiracy must
De g combination of two or more per-
ons. by some concerted action, to ac-
omplish some criminal or unlawfur
purpose, or to accomplish some pur-
)ose. not in itself criminal or unlawful
because ii is manifest that many acts
ire unlawful, which are not punish
bile by indictment or other public
prosecution. and yet there is no doubt
We think that a combination by num-
)erS to do them would be an unlawful
conspiracy and punishable by. indict-
nent. But yet it is clear
hat it is not every combination to do
Unlawful acts to the prejudice of an
)ther, which is punishable as con-
piracy
"Mr. WRIGHT in his work on Criminal
Conspiracy classifies the decisions in
he different States and places North
carolina in the class which holds that
onspiracieS are indictable where
neither the object nor the means are
riminal but where injury results &C
Individuals, and for this he cites State
IS. Younger, II n. c., 359. With the
L w
10 case in our own reports in which
IN Indictment is sustained which did
lot allege a conspiracy to commit
tcts, or the bill of particulars did not
set out facts showing a conspiracy to
ommit acts. indictable either at COM
non law or under some statute. 1t
must be conceded that expressions are
to be found in the opinions of the court
o the contrary. In State V. Toms, I ;
lcv by slaves to commit murder. It
vas made indictable by statute. Il
vas equally so at common law. In
State V. Trammell "a n. c., 379, Judge
iaston says that it is not necessary TO
iecide whether the facts set out con-
/ titute a criminal conspiracy. The
;ourt held that in no view were the
defendants guilty. In State VS.. Chris
hamburg, Al n. c., as, the court ex-
oressly declined to pass upon the suf-
iciency of the bill, putting the case
off on the statute of limitations. In
state VS.. Brady. 107 n. c., S22. the
econd count charged a conspiracy &c
heat and defraud by falsely and
iraudulently representing that certain
ands contained gold mines. whereas
he defendant we'll Knew that the said
ands did not contain gold mines. etc.
There was a motion to quash which
vas denied. There was a general YER
lict of guilty. The court said that if
either count was good 1t would sup
BORT the verdict. This was sufficient TO
dispose of the appeal. The secono
cunt was undoubtedly good and the
notion to quash could not be allowed.
m State vs. Wilson, 121 n. c., $50 the
question is not raised or discussed
new trial was given on other
grounds. In State VS.. Earwood, rs n.
:, 210, the only question decided was
the admissibility of evidence upon
which a new trial was given. In
we're three counts The first charged
generally a conspiracy to cheat and
iefraui. The second and third setting
)ut the facts showing a conspiracy TO
,ob and to obtain money under false
0retenseS-and the means reSorted TO
we're mol pressed but referred to as a.
dill of particulars. The first count
vas sustained by a divided court, the
present Chief Justice writing for ma
iority saying that by the second and
third counts considered as q bill of
particulars, the defendants were fully
informed, etc. 1t will thus be seen
hat in all of the cases in our reports,
l conspiracy to commit an indictable
offence is charged in the indictment,
or facts set forth as in Younger'S case
supra, where the charges III
the indictment was that the
defendants conspired to cheat
and defraud the prosecutor etc,
lni to accomplish that end they pro-
cured him to be intoxicated and en-
ged him to play at cards by means
whereof by falsely. fraudulently and
1eceitfully playing at the game Of
ards they cheated him, etc. 1t is not
necessary to discuss the question
whether the acts charged were indict-
able at common law. State VS.. Phipher.
| IS y. c., 321. We incline to the opin-
ION that they were. The learned Chief
Justice writing the opinion did not
seem to think so although he says:
Playing at cards for money was in
Itself unlawful. The word is of such
varied and uncertain import that it
S unfortunate that it was ever used
20 define a criminal act. 1t is not our
purpose to bring the decision or
Younger's case into question, but we
| cannot accept the definition given of
i criminal conspiracy. Every combs
nation to injure individuals or to DO
lctS which are unlawful or prejudf-
| cal to the community is indictable.'
| It will be noted that this case was sub
mittea by the attorney general with
out argument and the defendants were
| lot represented by counsel The court
cites but one case to sustain the defi~
| nition King V. Journeymen TailOrs