§ 501. Conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice. To wilfully obstruct or pervert the course of public justice is a misdemeanor at common law, and therefore a conspiracy to effect such a purpose is clearly indictable as a conspiracy to commit a crime.30 Thus, it is a crime to conspire to obstruct an officer in the discharge of his official duty; 31 to fabricate or destroy evidence, as by introducing false affidavits or certificates in evidence, by suppressing a will, etc.,32 or by passing a person off as the heir of a decedent to obtain a part of his estate; 33 to obtain money by means of an unfounded and fraudulent lawsuit; 34 to procure criminal process for improper purposes; 35 to enforce by legal process the payment of sums not due; to corruptly and unlawfully endeavor to induce a grand jury to dismiss a charge against a certain person; 37 or to unlawfully procure a verdict in an action by causing certain persons to be summoned as jurors therein,38 or by packing the jury; or to procure a witness to leave the jurisdiction or absent himself from the trial.40 30 Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 75 Atl. 631, 21 Ann. Cas. 28, and other cases cited in the following notes. Since impeding or obstructing the due administration of justice in a federal court is made a crime by the Federal Penal Code, a conspiracy to do so is punishable as a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. Harrington v. United States, 267 Fed. 97. 31 State v. McNally, 34 Me. 210, 56 Am. Dec. 650; State v. Noyes, 25 Vt. 415. 32 State v. De Witt, 2 Hill (S. C.) 282, 27 Am. Dec. 374. In Rex v. Mawbey, 6 Term R. 619, an indictment was sustained for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by producing in evidence a false certificate by justices of the peace that a highway was repaired, to influence the judgment of the court on an indictment for failure to repair. It is an indictable offense to conspire to cause it falsely to appear of record that a certain person is married to one of the conspirators. Com. v. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43. 39 36 33 Rex v. Robinson, 1 Leach C. C. 37. 34 Both at common law and under 33 Edw. I, Stat. 2. State v. Bacon, 27 R. I. 252, 61 Atl. 653. 35 Slomer v. People, 25 Ill. 70, 76 Am. Dec. 786. 36 Reg. v. Taylor, 15 Cox C. C. 265. 37 Garland v. State, 112 Md. 83, 75 Atl. 631, 21 Ann. Cas. 28. 38 Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N. E. 842, aff'g 110 Ill. App. 250. 39 O'Donnell v. People, 41 Ill. App. 23. 40 United States. Harrington V. United States, 267 Fed. 97. Iowa. State v. Hardin, 144 Iowa 264, 120 N. W. 470, 138 Am. St. Rep. 292. Massachusetts. Com. v. Perkins, England. Reg. v. Hamp, 6 Cox C. It is no defense that the testimony of the witness would have been immaterial. Tedford v. People, 219 Ill. 23, 76 N. E. 60. Statutes in some states expressly denounce conspiracies to falsely move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding, or to do any act injurious to the administration of public justice,42 or for the perversion or obstruction of justice or of the due administration of the laws.43 And of course a conspiracy of this character is indictable where the statute makes obstructing or impeding the due administration of justice a crime.44 § 502. Conspiracy to do immoral acts. A conspiracy to do an immoral act is indictable at common law, although the object of the 41 Pen. Code, § 182 (3). A charge under this provision may be maintained by proving a conspiracy to move an action without cause, knowing that no cause of action exists, or to maintain an existing cause of action by false testimony or other unlawful means. People v. Daniels, 105 Cal. 262, 38 Pac. 720. 42 Tedford v. People, 219 Ill. 23, 76 N. E. 60; Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N. E. 842, aff'g 110 Ill. App. 250. 43 A provision against conspiracies for the perversion or obstruction of the due administration of the law is aimed at conspiracies to prevent the performance of duties enjoined by law. People v. Knott, 187 N. Y. App. Div. 604, 176 N. Y. Supp. 321. Conspiracies for the following purposes have been held to come within such a provision: To procure the withdrawal, by connivance, of a man from an asylum for the criminal insane to which he has been committed by a court. Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S. 432, 59 L. Ed. 302, 35 Sup. Ct. 137. To procure a woman to commit adultery. State v. Reiners, 80 N. J. L. 196, 76 Atl. 330. To obtain a divorce by criminal means. State v. Herbert, 92 N. J. L. 341, 105 Atl. 796. To procure a person who is not a qualified elector to vote at an election. State v. Nugent, 77 N. J. L. 84, 71 Atl. 485. To influence the result of an election by bribing voters. State v. MeDevitt, 84 N. J. L. 11, 87 Atl. 123, aff'd 85 N. J. L. 731, 90 Atl. 287. To cause false testimony to be given in divorce action. People v. Rose, 101 N. Y. Misc. 650, 168 N. Y. Supp. 933. To induce or aid one who may be required as a witness in a pending action to leave the jurisdiction in order to escape service of a subpoena or to evade such service. People v. Hebberd, 96 N. Y. Misc. 617, 162 N. Y. Supp. 80. To procure the treasurer of a political committee to file a false or incomplete statement of election expenses, which statement is required to be filed by law, even if a failure to comply with the law is not a crime. People v. Knott, 187 N. Y. App. Div. 604, 176 N. Y. Supp. 321. A conspiracy between a public officer and another person having for its object the neglect and violation of his duties by such officer. People v. Willis, 158 N. Y. 392, 53 N. E. 29, aff'g 34 App. Div. 203, 54 N. Y. Supp. 642. 44 Wilder v. United States, 143 Fed. 433. 46 or to conspiracy would not be an indictable offense.45 This is true, for example, of a conspiracy to procure the seduction of a woman, procure a woman to engage in prostitution,47 or to procure sexual intercourse with a woman by means of a sham marriage.48 indictment will lie for a conspiracy to commit adultery, tion,50 or lewdness,51 or to keep a house of ill-fame, statute makes the object sought a crime. But a man and woman cannot alone conspire to themselves commit adultery, since concert of action is in such case a constituent part of the offense itself.53 And an or seducwhere the § 503. Conspiracy to injure another in his trade or calling. It is an indictable offense at common law to maliciously conspire to injure another in his trade or calling by means that are wrongful, though not criminal,54 as to ruin a tradesman's business by bribing his servants or apprentices to make inferior goods; 55 or to hinder a tradesman from exercising his trade, or a laborer or mechanic from obtaining 45 State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534. 46 Smith v. People, 25 Ill. 17, 76 Am. Dec. 780; State v. Powell, 121 N. C. 635, 28 S. E. 525; Anderson v. Com., 5 Rand. (Va.) 627, 16 Am. Dec. 776. To entice an unmarried woman to leave her home and live in fornication with a man. Rex v. Grey, 9 How. St. Tr. 127, 1 East P. C. 460. 47 Com. v. Bluestone, 47 Pa. Super. Ct. 60; Reg. v. Mears, 2 Den. C. C. 79, 4 Cox C. C. 425; Reg. v. Howell, 4 Fost. & F. 160. To place a girl, with her own consent, in the hands of a man for the purpose of prostitution. Rex v. Delaval, 3 Burrow 1434, 1 W. Bl. 410. 48 State v. Wilson, 121 N. C. 650, 28 S. E. 416. See also State v. Savoye, 48 Iowa 562. To persuade a woman and her parents that a forged license is genuine, and that one of the conspirators is a justice of the peace, and thus gain their consent to a sham marriage. State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765, 41 Am. Dec. 79. 49 State v. Clemenson, 123 Iowa 524, 99 N. W. 139; State v. Reiners, 80 N. J. L. 196, 76 Atl. 330. And see State v. Mitchell, 149 Iowa 362, 128 N. W. 378. 50 State v. Savoye, 48 Iowa 562. 51 State v. Mitchell, 149 Iowa 362, 128 N. W. 378. 52 People v. Hampton, 4 Utah 258, 9 Pac. 508. 53 See § 498, supra. 54 Iowa. Funck v. Farmers' Elevator Co. of Gowrie, 142 Iowa 621, 121 N. W. 53, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 108. Maryland. State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317, 9 Am. Dec. 534. New Jersey. State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649. Virginia. Crump v. Com., 84 Va. 927, 6 S. E. 620, 10 Am. St. Rep. 895. England. Rex v. Leigh, 2 Camp. 372, note; Reg. v. Druitt, 10 Cox C. C. 592; Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach C. C. 274; Rex v. Cope, 1 Strange 144. And see § 504, infra. 55 Rex v. Cope, 1 Strange 144, where a prosecution was sustained for conspiracy to ruin the trade of a card maker by bribing his appren employment; 56 or to impoverish and ruin an actor by hissing him and driving him from the stage; 57 or to compel a master to discharge. a workman.58 And statutes in many states expressly denounce conspiracies of this character.59 § 504. Combinations among workmen. Although there are some early cases to the contrary,60 it is now universally held that it is not unlawful for workmen to combine, by the formation of labor unions or otherwise, for the purpose of mutual protection against oppression or unfairness on the part of employers, provided they do not resort to or contemplate unlawful means to carry out their objects,61 tices to put grease into the paste, so as to spoil the cards. 56 Rex v. Eccles, 1 Leach C. C. 274. See Cote v. Murphy, 159 Pa. 420, 28 Atl. 190, where damages were denied a lumber dealer against members of an association of builders and dealers injuring his trade by inducing wholesalers not to sell him supplies. 57 Rex v. Leigh, 2 Camp. 372, note. 58 State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649; State v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 Atl. 814. And see § 504, infra. 59 See the statutes of the various states and the following cases: People v. Blumenberg, 271 Ill. 180, 110 N. E. 788; State v. Mardesich, 79 Wash. 204, 140 Pac. 573. The Wisconsin statute is not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, when construed as being confined to combinations with intent to do wrongful harm. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194, 49 L. Ed. 154, 25 Sup. Ct. 3, aff'g 113 Wis. 419, 89 N. W. 1135; State v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N. W. 1046, 62 L. R. A. 700. The statute was held to cover a conspiracy by managers of newspapers to force another newspaper to reduce its advertising rates or lose custom. Aikens v. State, 113 Wis. 419, 89 N. W. 1135, aff'd 195 U. S. 194, 49 L. Ed. 154, 25 Sup. Ct. 3; State v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N. W. 1046, 62 L. R. A. 700. A conspiracy to injure or destroy a person's business by means of a boycott comes within such a provision. Funck v. Farmers' Elevator Co., 142 Iowa 621, 121 N. W. 53, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 108. un An agreement by theater managers to exclude a dramatic critic from their theaters because of articles written by him reflecting on their personal integrity, and containing un justifiable attacks upon their patrons and members of the Jewish faith, is not within such a provision. People v. Flynn, 189 N. Y. 180, 82 N. E. 169, 12 Ann. Cas. 420, Aff'g 114 App. Div. 578, 100 N. Y. Supp. 31. Under the New York statute there must be some force, intimidation or threats, or some interference or threatened interference with the tools, implements or property of another. People v. Radt, 71 N. Y. Supp. 846. 60 People v. Fisher, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 9, 28 Am. Dec. 501; People v. Trequier, 1 Wheeler C. C. (N. Y.) 142; Case of the Journeymen Cordwainers, Yates Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 111; Rex v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10. 61 United States. United States v. and that, subject to the same limitations, they have a right to strike for the purpose of obtaining an advance in wages, a reduction of the hours of labor, or any other legitimate advantage.62 But if the agreement between them contemplates the use of unlawful means for accomplishing their object, they are guilty of a criminal conspiracy, though the object may be innocent.63 So it has been held that they are criminally responsible if their agreement contemplates the use of threats, intimidation, boycotting, or violence to prevent persons from continuing in or entering the employment of an employer,64 or Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698; In re charge to Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 828; Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 803. Connecticut. State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 8 Atl. 890, 3 Am. St. Rep. 23. Massachusetts. Com. v. Hunt, 4 Metc. 111, 38 Am. Dec. 346. New York. People v. McFarlin, 43 N. Y. Misc. 591, 89 N. Y. Supp. 527; People v. Walsh, 6 N. Y. Cr. 292, aff'd 110 N. Y. 633, 17 N. E. 871. North Carolina. State v. Van Pelt, 136 N. C. 633, 49 S. E. 177, 68 L. R. A. 760, 1 Ann. Cas. 495. Oklahoma. Ex parte Sweitzer, 13 Okla. Cr. 154, 162 Pac. 1134; State v. Coyle, 7 Okla. Cr. 50, 122 Pac. 243. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Sheriff, 15 Phila. 393. England. Reg. v. Rowlands, 17 Q. B. 671, 5 Cox C. C. 466, 2 Den. C. C. 364; Reg. v. Shepherd, 11 Cox C. C. 325; Reg. v. Duffield, 5 Cox C. C. 404. It is not criminal for laborers to notify their employer that he will not be considered in sympathy with organized labor if he employs nonunion men or retains them in his employ, and on his refusal to agree to employ only union men and to discharge nonunion employees, to give notice that he has been declared to be unfair toward organized labor, and that no union will work on material from his shop. State v. Van Pelt, 136 N. C. 633, 49 S. E. 177, 68 L. R. A. 760, 1 Ann. Cas. 495. 62 United States v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698; Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 803; People v. McFarlin, 43 N. Y. Misc. 591, 89 N. Y. Supp. 527. And see Lamar v. United States, 260 Fed. 561, certiorari denied, 250 U. S. 673, 63 L. Ed. 1200, 40 Sup. Ct. 16; JettonDekle Lumber Co. v. Mather, 53 Fla. 969, 43 So. 590. This is true though they may know that such action will necessarily cause injury to their employer, provided their abandonment of work is not in violation of any continuing contract, and is conducted in a lawful manner and not under such circumstances as to wantonly or maliciously inflict injury to person or property. State v. Stockford, 77 Conn. 227, 58 Atl. 769, 107 Am. St. Rep. 28. 63 People v. McFarlin, 43 N. Y. Misc. 591, 89 N. Y. Supp. 527; State v. Van Pelt, 136 N. C. 633, 49 S. E. 177, 68 L. R. A. 760, 1 Ann. Cas. 495. And see Jetton-Dekle Lumber Co. v. Mather, 53 Fla. 969, 43 So. 590. 64 State v. Stockford, 77 Conn. 227, 58 Atl. 769, 107 Am. St. Rep. 28; People v. Yannicola, 133 N. Y. App. Div. 885, 117 N. Y. Supp. 381; People v. McFarlin, 43 N. Y. Misc. 591, 89 N. Y. Supp. 527; State v. Stewart, |