Odger's English Common Law

264 CONSPIRACY
to do an act, which, if done by one person, would be neither
a tort nor a crime. The correctness of this decision, however,
has been questioned. 1 And even if it be good law, it does
not necessarily follow that such a combination is no crime
for a crime need not always be also a tort. The interests of
the community—nay, even the safety of the public—may in
some cases require that such a combination should be sternly
repressed, even though no action for damages could be founded
upon it. No one, it is true, is bound to work for or deal
with a particular person; he may lawfully refuse to enter
into any such contract. But if a large number of persons,
without any sufficient justification, agree together that they
will not enter into any contracts with some unpopular person
—will not supply him or his family with the necessaries of
life—this is a criminal conspiracy ; it is the crime of " boy-
cotting." For several persons out of express malice towards
one man to agree together to induce many others not to enter
into contracts with him is a crime ; for though the victim of
the conspiracy may be a match for one man, he cannot suc-
cessfully contend against a combination of many men. 2
That such a crime exists is clear; but its nature and
extent are ill-defined. The following points, however, appear
to be well settle*d :
—
If A. and B. agree together to advise X. and T. not to
enter into any contracts with C, and do so bond fide for the
good of X. and Y., giving them advice which they honestly
believe to be in the best interests of X. and Y., this is .clearly
no crime ; for there is neither actus reus, nor mens rea. This
will be so whenever A. and B. can show any sufficient justi-
fication or excuse for their interference in the private concerns
of X. and Y. Friendly advice is no crime, even though it
cause damage to a third person.
Again—though this is not quite so clear—there is no
crime where the interference of A. and B. is caused by
motives of self-interest. Competition between rival traders
is allowed to any extent, if only lawful means are employed.
1 See post, pp. 631, 632.
2 See the judgment of Lord Bramwell in Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, [1892]
A. C. at p. 45, and of Lord Brampton in Quinu v. Leathern, [1901] A. C. at p. 531.
;