Odger's English Common Law

258 CONSPIRACY.
" unlawful common purpose " not only covers all crimes and
most torts ; it also includes some acts, which, are neither torts
nor crimes, but are nevertheless in some way fraudulent or
corrupt, flagrantly immoral or obviously injurious to the
public interest. 1
It is impossible to define these acts with
greater precision. But if two or more persons agree to do
any of these acts, an indictment will lie against them for
conspiracy ; for such an agreement is regarded as a danger to
the State.
Thus, it is an indictable conspiracy for A . and B. to agree together
to induce a woman C. to become a common prostitute, whether she
be chaste or not, and whether the inducement succeed or not
to falsely accuse D. of a crime ;
3
to defraud the public by holding a mock auction 4 (but for them to
agree together not to bid against each other at a real auction is
not indictable 5 ) ;
to raise the price of the funds by false rumours ;
to " pull a horse " and prevent it winning a race
to defraud their partner, by means of false accounts, the fraud not
being in itself criminal at the time when it was committed ;
to procure from the Foreign Office by false representations a passport
for a foreigner to enable him to travel in Eussia as a British
subject and under a British name ; for such an act would tend to stir
up ill-feeling between this country and Eussia, and so to produce a
public mischief. 9
In the last case Lord Alverstone, 0. J., in delivering the judgment of the
Court, said : " It cannot, of course, be maintained that every fraud and
cheat constitutes an offence against the criminal law, but the distinction
between acts which are merely improper or immoral and those which tend
to produce a public mischief has long been recognised. . . . Whatever
attempts may have been made from time to time to strain the law of con-
spiracy or to bring within its purview combinations to perform acts, to
which no objection can be taken when done by a single individual, 10 no
question of the kind arises in this case." If "the issue of a public
document by a public department of State is obtained by a false repre-
sentation for an improper purpose, i.e., for use by a different person passing
1 JR. v. Whitaker, [1914] 3 K. B. 1283.
2 R. v. Howell (1864), 4 I. Jt J. 160 ; and see R. v. Belaval (1763), 1 Wm.
Blackstone, 410, 439 ; R. v. Lord Grey (1682), 9 St. Tr. 127.
3 Poulterer's Case (1611), 9 Eep. 65 ; R. v. Spraqq (1760), 2 Burr. 993, 1027.
* R. v. Lewis (1869), 11 Cox, 404.
5 Hefer v. Martin (1867), 15 W. E. 390, overruling Levi v. Levi (1833), 6
C. & P. 239.
6 R. y. De Berenger (1814), 3 M. & S. 67 ; R. v. AspinaU (1876), 1 Q. B. D.
780 ; 2 Q. B. D. 48. "
7 R. v. Orbell (1704), 6 Mod. 42.
8 R. v. Warburton (1871), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 274.
9 R. v. Brailsford, [1905] 2 K. B. 730
10 Sea post, pp.628—633.
;
6
v
8
;
2
—