FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 147 



it is a mere struggle between mind and mind, caution and 

 ■wariness, if fairly exercised, may often be beld sufficient to 

 obviate the effects of cunning and duplicity {a) . 



But where several combine for the pui'pose of aiding Where several 

 and assisting each other in outmtting a single individual, persons com- 

 there the parties stand on very different terms, and that ^^® ° ^ 

 which ordinary prudence might othermse prevent, becomes 

 oftentimes a dangerous and powerful Conspiracy, difficult to 

 be detected, and most disastrous in its consequences (a) . 



Where there is CoUu^ion between two or more to cheat in Conspiracy to 

 the sale of a Horse, an Indictment for a Conspiracy maybe cheat indict - 

 maintained [b], because it is such an offence as affects the ^ ^* 

 Public, and against which no ordinary care or prudence 

 can guard {c). 



But no indictment lies for a Conspiracy without e%idence There must be 

 either direct or indirect {d) of concert between the parties to evidence of 

 effectuate a Fraud. Thus in the case of Rex v. Pyu-ell {e) , '^^^^^^ ' 

 where a false Warranty had been given, Lord Ellenborough 

 directed an acquittal, because one of two defendants, though 

 acting in the sale, was not shown to have been aware that 

 a Fraud was practised (/'). 



So on an indictment against A., B., C, D., E., F., Gr. and What evi- 

 H., for conspiracy to cheat M. by selling a glandered v^^^^^f? 

 Horse as a sound Horse, the e^ddence Avas that A. having insufficient, 

 previously cheated M. by selling him a kicking Horse, 

 the defendants B., C, D. andE. obtained that Horse from 

 M. in exchange for a glandered Horse which he sub- 

 quently sold. A., accompanied by Gr., afterwards sold M. 

 another Horse, in which transaction the latter was again 

 defrauded. Some evidence was given to show that A. was 

 frequently in company with some of the other defendants, 

 and that he was aware of a previous sale of the glandered 

 Horse by them, but there was no other evidence to connect 

 him with its sale to M. It was held by Mr. Justice Cress- 

 well, that in the absence of any evidence clearly leading to 

 the conclusion that A. was a party to that sale, there was 

 no evidence of a Conspiracy to go to the Jury against 

 him(r/). 



(ff) See per Law, Recorder of {d) Reg. v. Read, 6 Cox, C. C. 



London, Reg. v. Bailey, 4 Cox, 0. 134. 



C. 397. (e) Re.v v. Pywell, 1 Stark. N. P. 



{h) Pauley V. Freeman, 3 T. R. C. 402. 



58 ; Reg. v. Hheppard, 9 C. & P. (/) See Reg. v. Kenricl; T) Q. B, 



123. 62. 



{<■) Rex V. Wheafh/, 2 Burr. (-/) Reg. v. Reed, 6 Cox, C. C. 



1127, ■ 135. 



l2 



