Odger's English Common Law

NOT TO CONTRACT. 265
So long as neither force nor threats of violence are used, 1 it
is no tort, and—in most cases at all events—no crime, for two
or more, from motives of self-interest, to agree together
to induce others not to enter into contracts with a rival
trader ; for self-interest is not malice. It is not clear, how-
ever, that this rule applies in its entirety to cases of criminal
conspiracy. The remarks of Bowen, L. J., in Mogul Steam-
ship Co. v. McGregor, 2 suggest that an agreement of the kind,
which the Court in this case declared not to be actionable,
might nevertheless in some cases be held to amount to an
indictable conspiracy on the ground of obvious and excessive
inconvenience.
And even where the action of the defendant is dictated
neither by motives of self-interest nor of friendship for X.
and Y., nevertheless, if the conspiracy be entered into in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, it is, as we
have seen, no crime, unless A. and B. intended to have
recourse to violence and intimidation, or unless such was the
natural consequence of their acts. The Legislature apparently
considered a trade dispute a sufficient justification.
Boycotting, however, frequently arises from religious or
political ill-feeling, in which no trade interests are concerned. 3
And here it would seem that we have arrived at an instance
of a criminal conspiracy arising out of acts, which in them-
selves would be innocent if done by one man without pre-
concert with others. The parties engaged in it must be
numerous; they must be actuated by motives of spite and
ill-will against the person boycotted. Their conduct must be
calculated to do him and his family serious and substantial
damage ; and the result of the combination must, it is sub-
mitted, be such as to cause some mischief or inconvenience
to the public generally or to a portion of the public ; other-
wise the conspiracy is no crime. 4
1 Tarleton and otfiers v. McQawley (1794), Peake, 270 ; Young v. Sickens (1844),
Pudsey Coal Gas Co. v. Bradford Corporation (1873), L. R. 15 Eq. 167.
6 Q. B. 606 ;
* (1889), 23 Q. B. D. at p. 618. Nevertheless, the decisions in this case and in
Allen v. Flood, [18981 A. C. 1, undoubtedly restrict to some extent the ruling of
Erie, J., in R. v. Rowlands (1851), 17 Q. B. 671.
s Sweeney v. Coote, [1906] 1 I. B. 51 ; [1907] A. C. 221.
* See R. v. Rowlands (1851), 17 Q. B. 671 ; R. v. Parnell (1881), 14 Cox, 505 ;
O'Connell v. R. (1843), 5 St. Tr. (N. S.) 1 ; 1 Cox, 413.