injure and oppress P. in his trade, business, &c., of, &c., and to induce his workmen to depart from their hiring and employment with P. before the period of their agreement with him was completed. And

That defendants conspired unlawfully to intimidate, prejudice, and oppress P. in his trade and occupation of, &c., and to entice and seduce away the workmen of P. from the employment of P., and thereby to injure and oppress him in his said trade. Semble, that these were bad counts, as being too vague.

INDICTMENT, removed into this Court by certiorari. It contained the following counts.

*1. That, before and at the time of the committing, &c.,

Richard Perry and George Henry Perry carried on trade and [*672 business as manufacturers of japanned and tin wares at Wolverhampton in the county of Stafford under the name, firm, &c., of Richard Perry and Son and that divers, viz. fifty, persons were workmen and were hired and employed by and worked as workmen for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade and business: And that Harry Rowlands, late of, &c. (names and descriptions of the defendants), with divers other evil disposed persons, on, &c., with force and arms, at, &c., did amongst themselves unlawfully conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, by unlawfully molesting the said workmen so hired and employed by and working for the said R. P. and the said G. H. P. in their said trade and business as aforesaid, to force and endeavour to force the said workmen so hired and employed by and working for the said R. P. and G. H. P. as aforesaid in their said trade, &c., as aforesaid to depart from their said hiring, employment, and work: To the great damage of the said R. P. and G. H. P., to the evil example, &c., and against the peace, &c.

2. Like the first count, only stating the means to be, *by [*673 unlawfully using threats to the said workmen so hired and employed, &c.

3. Like the preceding, but stating the means to be, by unlawfully intimidating the said workmen so hired, &c.

4, 5, 6. Counts similarly framed, for conspiring to force individual workmen, named, to depart from their hiring, by the means stated in counts 1, 2, 3, respectively.

7. Inducement as in count 1, stating that divers, to wit, fifty, persons were workmen and were hired and employed by and worked for R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade as aforesaid: and that defendants, with divers, &c., did unlawfully conspire, &c., by unlawfully molesting the said R. P. and G. H. P., to force and endeavour to force the said workmen so hired, &c., and working, &c., to depart from their said hiring, employment, and work: To the great damage, &c.

8. Like count 7, but stating the means to be by unlawfully obstructing the said R. P. and G. H. P., so carrying on their trade and business as aforesaid, and the said workmen so hired, &c., by and working for the said R. P. and G. H. P. as aforesaid in their said trade and business as aforesaid.

9. That R. P. and G. H. P. carried on trade, &c., at, &c.: And that defendants, with divers other, &c., at, &c., on, &c., did unlawfully conspire, &c., by molesting the said R. P. and G. H. P., to force and endeavour to force the said R. P. and G. H. P., so carrying on their trade, &c., as aforesaid, to make an alteration in the mode of conducting and carrying on their said trade, &c., as aforesaid: To the great damage, &c.

10. Inducement, that fifty workmen were hired, &c., by R. P. and G. H. P., as in former counts: Allegation that defendants, with divers, &c., conspired, &c., "by *obstructing the said R. P. and G. H. *674] P. by inducing and persuading the said workmen in the hiring and employment of the said R. P. and G. H. P., so carrying on business as aforesaid, to leave their hiring, employment, and work, to force and endeavour to force the said R. P. and G. H. P., so carrying on trade and business as aforesaid, to make an alteration in the mode of conducting and carrying on their said trade," &c., as aforesaid: to the great damage, &c.

11. That R. P. and G. H. P. carried on trade, &c.: and that divers persons were being hired and employed as workmen for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade and business: And that defendants, with divers, &c., on, &c., unlawfully conspired, &c., by molesting and obstructing such workmen as aforesaid as might be willing to be hired and employed by the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade and business as aforesaid, and who were not then hired and employed by the said R. P. and G. H. P. or by any other person, to prevent and endeavour to prevent the said workmen, so willing to be employed and hired by the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade, &c., as aforesaid, from hiring themselves to and from accepting work and employment from the said R. P. and G. H. P. as aforesaid in their said trade, &c., as aforesaid to the great damage, &c.

12. Like count 11, but stating the means to be, by unlawfully using threats and intimidation to such workmen as aforesaid who might be willing, &c.

13. That R. P. and G. H. P. carried on trade, &c.: And that divers, to wit, fifty persons, being artificers, had contracted with the said R. P. and G. H. P. to *serve them as workmen and artificers in their *675] said trade and business for certain times and periods respectively agreed upon between them and the said R. P. and G. H. P.; and the said persons so being such artificers as aforesaid had entered into the service of the said R. P. and G. H. P. as such manufacturers as aforesaid: And that defendants, with divers, &c., unlawfully conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices to induce and persuade such arti ficers, so having contracted with the said R. P. and G. H. P. as aforesaid to serve them in their said trade and business for certain times. &c., as aforesaid and so having entered into the service, &c., as aforesaid,

unlawfully to absent themselves from the said service of the said R. P. and G. H. P. without the consent of the said R. P. and G. H. P. or either of them, before the respective terms of the said contracts as aforesaid were completed: To the great damage, &c.

14. Inducement, that William Hodson, being an artificer, had contracted, &c.: Averments, similar to those in count 13, of contract for service as a workman and artificer for a period, &c. (specified), on terms agreed upon between them, and entry into the service: Allegation that defendants, with divers, &c., conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices and illegal acts and practices, and by intoxicating the said W. Hodson, to induce and persuade the said W. Hodson, such artificer as aforesaid and so having contracted, &c., as aforesaid, to serve, &c., for the said period on the said terms so as aforesaid agreed upon between. them the said W. Hodson and the said R. P. and G. H. P. as aforesaid and so having entered into the service, &c., as aforesaid, unlawfully to absent himself from the service of the said R. P. and G. H. P. without the consent of the said *R. P. and G. H. P. or either of them, before the term of the said contract as aforesaid was completed: To the great damage, &c.

[*676

15. A similar count to the 14th; laying a conspiracy by the like means to induce, &c., Thomas Griffiths unlawfully to absent himself, &c. 16. That defendants, with divers, &c., conspired unlawfully to intimidate, prejudice, and oppress one Richard Perry and one George Henry Perry in their trade and occupation as manufacturers of japanned and tin wares, and to prevent the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. from continuing to work for the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade and occupation.

17. That defendants, with divers, &c., conspired by divers subtle means and devices and wicked acts and practices to injure and oppress the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade, business, and occupation of manufacturers of tin and japanned ware, and to induce the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. to depart from their hiring, employment, and work with the said R. P. and G. H. P. before the period of their agreement with the said R. P. and G. H. P. was completed.

18. That defendants, with divers, &c., wickedly intending to injure and oppress the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade and business as manufacturers of japanned and tin wares, unlawfully conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices and by intoxicating and thereby rendering senseless the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their trade and business, to convey to a distance and carry away the said workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P., and thereby to prevent the said workmen from continuing to work for the said *R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade and business as aforesaid. 19. That defendants, with divers, &c., conspired, &c., unlawfully to intimidate, prejudice, and oppress one Richard Perry and one George

[*677

Henry Perry in their trade and occupation of manufacturers of japanned and tin wares, and to entice and seduce away the workmen of the said R. P. and G. H. P. from the employment of the said R. P. and G. H. P., and thereby to injure and oppress the said R. P. and G. H. P. in their said trade and occupation.

20. That defendants, with divers, &c., unlawfully conspired, &c., by divers subtle means and devices and by illegal acts and practices, and by molesting and rendering intoxicated the workmen in the employment of the said R. P. and G. H. P., and by inducing the workmen to depart from the said employment of the said R. P. and G. H. P., and to break their contracts with the said R. P. and G. H. P., to force and compel the said R. P. and G. H. P. to alter and thereby increase the amount of wages which the said R. P. and G. H. P. then were in the habit of paying to the workmen in the employment of them the said R.,P. and G. H. P.

On the trial, before Erle, J., at the Staffordshire summer assizes in this year, the defendants (except Pitt, who was acquitted) were found Guilty upon all the counts. In this term, (a)

Sir A. J. E. Cockburn, Attorney-General, Whateley, Keating, Peacock, and Parry (appearing respectively for different defendants), moved in arrest of judgment.-The *counts down to the 10th inclusive *678] charge conspiracies to force workmen to leave their employment, or the masters to alter their mode of carrying on business, by molesting, by threats, by intimidating, and by obstructing. These counts are bad, as being too vague. In the words of Tindal, C. J., in O'Connell v. The Queen, 11 Cl. & Fin. 155, 234, "they do not state the illegal purpose and design of the agreement entered into by the defendants, with such proper and sufficient certainty, as to lead to the necessary conclusion that it was an agreement to do an act in violation of the law." To "molest," as explained in Johnson's Dictionary, is only to disturb; to trouble; to vex:" which might be done by means not unlawful, and yet produce the effects said to have been contemplated by the defendants. If the means of molestation were unlawful, the indictment should have shown it; Rex v. Seward, 1 A. & E. 706 (E. C. L. R. vol. 28), Rex v. Jones, 4 B. & Ad. 345 (E. C. L. R. vol. 24). A count for conspiracy was pronounced bad on a similar ground in Regina v. Peck, 9 A. & E. 686 (E. C. L. R. vol. 36). The word "unlawfully" does not supply the want of the essential averments; Rex v. Seward, 1 A. & E. 706, 712. Again, threats" are not necessarily illegal threats. The defendants might merely have threatened to cease associating with the parties whom they addressed. As to "intimidating," it was the opinion of all the Judges, adopted by the House of Lords in O'Connell v. The Queen, 11 Cl. & Fin. 155, that an alleged agreement to procure meetings for the unlawful purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby caused," certain objects, did not, without further averment, show an (a) November 21st. Before Lord Campbell, C. J., Patteson, Coleridge, and Erle, Js.

[*679

illegal purpose. Tindal, C. J., said: The word "intimidation" is not a technical word; it is not *vocabulum artis, having a necessary meaning in a bad sense; it is a word in common use, employed on this occasion in its popular sense; and in order to give it any force, it ought at least to appear from the context what species of fear was intended, or upon whom such fear was intended to operate." A man may be intimidated by telling him that if he acts in a certain manner he will ruin his family; but this is not an unlawful menace. The same course of observation applies to "obstructing." In Frost v. Lloyd, 9 Q. B. 130 (E. C. L. R. vol. 58), it was held that to allege an obstructing of a leet jury was not enough, without stating some specific act. The allegation of inducing and persuading, in the 10th count, does not add anything material. Conspiring to persuade is no offence, unless illegal means are used. [Lord CAMPBELL, C. J.-The persuading is the means, not the object.]

These objections apply also to counts 11 and 12, which allege conspiracies, by molesting and obstructing, and by threats and intimidation, to prevent workmen from hiring themselves to the prosecutors: and, further, it ought to have been stated that the defendant knew of an intended hiring by these parties: and, again, in these counts, the names of the workmen should have been stated, or an excuse shown for omitting them; King v. The Queen, 7 Q. B. 795 (E. C. L. R. vol. 53), and an Anonymous(a) case there cited by Parke, B., as having been decided at the Norwich Spring assizes, 1845. Tindal, C. J., delivering the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber in King v. The Queen, said: "The charge is, that the defendants below conspired to cheat and defraud divers liege subjects, being tradesmen, of their goods, &c.; and the objection is that these persons should *have been designated by [*680 their Christian and surnames, or an excuse given, such as that their names are to the jurors unknown; because this allegation imports that the intention of the conspirators was to cheat certain definite individuals, who must always be described by name or a reason given why they are not; and, if the conspiracy was to cheat indefinite individuals, as for instance those whom they should afterwards deal with or afterwards fix upon, it ought to have been described in appropriate terms, showing that the objects of the conspiracy were, at the time of making it, unascertained." [Lord CAMPBELL, C. J.-Here the workmen are not the parties to be injured: your cases are no authority for your position.]

It may be argued in defence of all these counts that they are grounded upon a statute(b) and follow its words. But that applies only

(a) 7 Q. B. 798.

(b) Stat. 6 G. 4, c. 129, s. 3, enacts: That, "if any person shall by violence to the person or property, or by threats or intimidation, or by molesting or in any way obstructing another, force or endeavour to force any journeyman, manufacturer, workman, or other person hired or employed in any manufacture, trade, or business, to depart from his hiring, employment, or work, or to return his work before the same shall be finished, or prevent or endeavour to prevent any