Odger's English Common Law

626 CIVIL CONSPIRACIES.
agreement has been made ; but to sustain an action there
must be a conspiracy, a wrongful act done in pursuance of it,
and special damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiff.
" An action will not lie for the greatest conspiracy imagin-
able, if nothing be put in execution; but if the party be
damaged, the action will lie." 1 "I then eliminate the con-
spiracy as a part of the substantial cause of action and use it
for the purposes for which only in such an action it is avail-
able : viz., (i.) as making the defendants jointly responsible
for the acts done in pursuance of it ; and (ii.) as indicating
the alleged malicious or wrongful intention which governed
those acts." 2
The defendant and S. conspired to obtain possession of a portion of the
plaintiff's premises and to set up illicit stills there, and in pursuance of
this conspiracy, by falsely pretending to the plaintiff that S. wanted the
premises for carrying on a lawful trade, persuaded the plaintiff to demise
them to S. and to allow him and the defendant to take possession. The
defendant and 8. took possession, and set up illicit stills and manufactured
spirits on the premises. An Excise officer found the stills upon the
demised premises, and at the same time discovered the plaintiff there, who
appeared to be aiding in the illicit distilling ; whereupon the officer
arrested the plaintiff and took him before a magistrate. The plaintiff was
unable to prove his innocence and was convicted, thus sustaining special
damage. It was held that no action lay, because the damage to the
plaintiff was not shown to have been either intended by the defendant or
to have been the necessary result of his acts. 3
In the course of the argument in the above case Williams, J., asked the
question : " A. and B., having committed a felony by stealing, put the
stolen goods in C.'s box, and the result is that C. is convicted of the felony.
Would an action for a conspiracy lie at the suit of C. against A. and B. ? "
And counsel replied : " It is submitted that it would not, unless the
conspiracy was to convict C. by perjury and false evidence." i
A breach of contract by one of the contracting parties is
no tort and, as a rule, no crime. But for a stranger to the
contract, without just cause or excuse, knowingly to induce
one of the contracting parties to break his contract is
except in the case of a trade dispute 6—a tort. And for
several persons to combine in so inducing a breach of contract
1 Per Lord Holt, C. J., in Sauile v. Roberts (1699), 1 Lord Raym. at p. 378.
* Per Palles, C. B., in Kearney v. Lloyd (1890), 2B L. K. Ir. at p. 279.
8 Baroer v. Zesiter (1859), 7 U. B. N. S. 176.
1
7 C. B. N. Si. at p. 182 ; 29 L. J. C. P. at p. 164.
6
See' as to criminal cases, ante, p. 260 ; as to civil acti actions, post, p. 632.
—