(First Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 1 H. H. P. C. 444): "Although if
many come upon an unlawful design, and one of the company till one
of the adverse party in pursuance of that design, all are
principals; yet if many be together upon a lawful account, and one
of the company kill another of the adverse party, without any
particular abetment of the rest to this fact of homicide, they are
not all guilty that are of the company, but only those that gave the
stroke or actually abetted him to do it."

(1 H. H. P. C. 445): "In case of a riotous assembly to rob or steal
deer, or to do any unlawful act of violence, there the offense of
one is the offense of all the company."

(In another place, 1 H. H. P. C. 439): "The Lord Dacre and divers
others went to steal deer in the park of one Pellham. Raydon, one
of the company, killed the keeper in the park, the Lord Dacre and
the rest of the company being in the other part of the park. Yet it
was adjudged murder in them all, and they died for it." (And he
quotes Crompton 25, Dalton 93. p. 241.) "So that in so strong a
case as this, where this nobleman set out to hunt deer in the ground
of another, he was in one part of the park and his company in
another part, yet they were all guilty of murder."

The next is:--

(Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 1 H. H. P. C. 440): "The case of
Drayton Bassit; divers persons doing an unlawful act, all are
guilty of what is done by one."

(Foster 353, 354): "A general resolution against all opposers,
whether such resolution appears upon evidence to have been actually
and implicitly entered into by the confederates, or may reasonably
be collected from their number, arms or behavior, at or before the
scene of action, such resolutions so proved have always been
considered as strong ingredients in cases of this kind. And in cases
of homicide committed in consequence of them, every person present,
in the sense of the law, when the homicide has been involved in the
guilt of him that gave the mortal blow."

(Foster): "The cases of Lord Dacre, mentioned by Hale, and of
Pudsey, reported by Crompton and cited by Hale, turned upon this
point. The offenses they respectively stood charged with, as
principals, were committed far out of their sight and hearing, and
yet both were held to be present. It was sufficient that at the
instant the facts were committed, they were of the same party and
upon the same pursuit, and under the same engagements and
expecta