Sec.  112.  Same  —  The  Anarcliists'  Case.  —  Where  a  num-
ber of  persons  conspired  together  to  destroy  the  police  force
of  a  city  in  case  of  a  certain  event,  as,  for  instance,  a  collision
between  said  police  force  and  workingmen,  by  throwing  a
bomb  among  the  police,  it  was  immaterial  that  the  bomb-
maker  did  not  know  what  particular  person  was  to  throw  it,
if  he  made  and  delivered  it  in  the  knowledge  that  it  was  to
be  exploded  by  one  of  a  number  of  persons  having  a  common
purpose,  and  in  furtherance  of  that  purpose;  and  therefore
it  was  not  necessary  for  the  thrower  of  the  bomb  to  be  per-
sonally identified,  but  it  was  sufficient  to  implicate  the  bomb-
maker  that  it  appeared  that  the  bomb-thrower  belonged  to
the  conspiracy,  and  threw  the  bomb  to  carry  out  its  arrange-
ment and  further  its  design.  The  fact  that  the  principal  in
the  first  degree  was  personally  unknown  to  a  person  charged
with  aiding,  abetting,  advising,  and  encouraging  a  homicide
is  not  necessarily  any  obstacle  to  a  conviction. ^  And  it  is
alike  imimportant  that  the  person  charged  as  a  conspirator
does  not  know  which  one  of  the  class  of  persons  at  whom  the
conspiracy  is  aimed  is  to  be  its  victim.  So  it  was  immaterial,
in  fixiup-  the  g^uilt  of  the  bomb-maker,  that  he  did  not  know
what  particular  policeman  might  be  killed  or  injured.  The
design  of  the  conspiracy  virtually  designated  the  body  or
class  of  men  who  were  to  be  attacked,  and  where  one  of  such
class  was  killed,  the  guilt  of  the  bomb-maker  was  the  same
as  though  a  particular  person  had  been  pointed  out  to  him  as
the  intended  victim.^

Where,  in  a  conspiracy  to  accomplish  an  unlawful  purpose,
the  means  are  not  specifically  agreed  upon  or  understood,
each  conspirator  becomes  responsible  for  the  means  used  by
any  co-conspirator  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  purpose  in
which  they  are  all  at  tlie  time  engaged.^  But  where  the
Avays  and  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  unlawful
design   are    mutually  agreed   upon  beforehand,   in  order  to

1  Spies  V.  People(Anarchists'  Case),  '^  Spies  v.  People,  1'22  III.  1  (1887)  ;

122  111.  1  (1887);  s.c.  .3  Am.  St.  Rep.  s.c.   9  Cr.  L.    Mag.  829;   3   Am.    St.
