The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-12-17
DEFINE
CONSPIRACY CLEARLY

and succeeded in tho accomplishment
OF this object, then you must find FOR
the plaintiff against such defendants
so COuSpiring. and fix the damages at
such sum as y1u believe 90 be Just
and reasonable compensation 10 the
plaintiff from the evidence in the
case, but not in excess OF $4,000.
the amount laid in the declaration.
Ard the court further iustructs the
jury that acts and statements " the
several defendants done or said by
them separately II relied upon To-
show common design or intent. must
he Of such character as to lead to
a reasonable Inference Of an inten-
tl0nal combination between the de-
PENDANTS. And If the jury believes
from the evidence that acts or state
ments Of any Of The defendants so
relied upon. proceeded only from
feeling common to all the defendants
because they were all members Of the
immediate family of the plaintiffs
wife, and were expressions Of the feel
ines and attitude Of each such de-
PENDANT separately without any CON
certed purpose. then separate acts and
statements could not give rise 10
common intent necessary to constitute
a conspiracy.
As to Relationship.
3. The court instructs the jury that
IL you believe from the evidence that
tfTU FrI7drarT0T1 u the ITt1TT1rTTr 3TTT MS
wife Was The result OF active interior
cuce On The part of the defendants,
either by threats, persuasion, induce
.meuts or arguments, with the dellbe-
rate intention and solely for the pur-
pose oe bringing about such separation
based on no Justihable ground, but
with Ill viii toward the plaintiff. then
The mere fact that such defendants
occupy the relationship set forth in
he declaration to the plaintiffs wife
gives them no right to thus deliberate
ly and wiifuily and with i'll viii to-
ward the plaintiff interfere for the
purpose Of separating the plaintln
and his wife,
4 The court fnstructs the jury that
II you believe from the evidence that
two or more of the defendants en-
tered into u conspiracy or common
scheme To separate the plaintiff and
his wife, as defined In these instruc-
lions. then the acts ana declarations
OF any of the Consprators in fur
therance of the object Of said con-
spiraCy or scheme are admissible evil
dence against each and all Of them.
though such acts and declarations
were not done and said in the pres
ence OF alt, And they are admissible.
even against a conspirator, who did
not accede to the conspiracy, until
after they were done and said. For
after the conspiracy is formed each
I Couspiratdr is the agent Of every
other and when he accedes to the
conspiracy he sanctions what may
have been previously done or said by
the others or any of them. In furth-
erance Of the common object. Pro-
vided that such acts ana declarations
were dCne or made by one who IS
shown l." the evidence 10 be con-
sprator at the time Of doing or MAX
Ing them. and further that they were
done or said in furth' rance Of the
common object of the conspiracy,
Design Must BE Proved.
\ s, The jury are instructed that a
common design OF purpose by two
or more of the defendants is the es-
sence of the charge, of conspiracy in
the declaration in this case and this
common design must be proved either
by direct evidence or by proof of
such circumstances as naturally tend
+ to prove it, and sufficient In them
selves to satisfy YOU Of the existence
OF such common design before you
can find "A conspiracy. II you believe
that no such common design or pur-
pose by two or more of defendants,
as alleged in the declaration has been
proven by the greater weight Qf the
evidence, you must hold that no SUCH
conspiracy was ever entered into.
6. You are also instructed that II
! you shall find that no such conspir-
acy was entered into, then any evil
dence of any statement made, or of
| any act done, by any one of the de-
PENDANTS out Of the presence or hear
ing of the others or Of any one of
| them, must not be considered by you
as affecting any one of the defend
ants so absent or out of hearing,
unless the evidence shows that such
statement was made or act done with
the knowledge and approval of those
not present or within hearing.
May Give Honest Advice
I 7. The court instructs the jury that
when a separation of wife from a
husband IL caused by the acts, advice
or persuasion Of an outside person
L the Law recognizes a distinction be-
tween the liability of a stranger on
the one hand and Of a parent, brother
or sister on the other hand. One of
the relatives mentioned may give hon
est advice or use reasonable persta-
sion with pure motives or express an
I honest opinion without mourning re-
sponsibiIity for the separation, al
though the advice or opinion may be
unfortunate. unless H. - shown That
the advice or opinion was not given
or expressed under the influence Of
natural affection or OF the family re-
latlon, but proceeded from III WIN or
I malice.
+ II the jury believe from the evil
dence that acts and statements or
conduct of one or more OF the de-
! PENDANTS caused or Influenced the
! wife In this case TO leave and remain
/ away from her husband. yet If they