684 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the case, be circumstantial, though the common design is the essence of the charge." That is, the design entertained by each to perform the act. "It is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together and actually agreed in terms to have that design and to pursue it by common means. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same objeets, often by the same means, one performing one part and another another part of the same, so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, the jury will be justiiied in the conclusion that they were engagea in a conspiracy to effect that object." �Now, gentlemen, you are to consider, from the circum- stances of this case, whether there was a conspiracy to effect this object of resisting the marshal. There is testimony here tending to show that there was a combination of men formed for the purpose of resisting the Southern Pacific Eailroad Company in the occupation of the lands claimed by it, and patented to it by the government, being the odd sections of land. There is testimony tending to show that there was a, combination for that purpose, and that, at an early stage of the case, there was an organization and a constitution adopted, with subordinate leagues, and a pledge, which the testimony tends to show was taien, — whether it does show it or not is a question for you to consider and determine, — and that pledge is in language which follows : �"That we recognize no rights of the Southern Pacific Eail- road Company to our homes, and that the Southern Pacific Eailroad Company or its assignees cannot peaceably enjoy the benefits of our several years of toil to our exclusion ; and that in placing our signatures to this resolution we do it with the iirm resolve to stand by each other in the protection of our homes and our families against this fraudulent claim of the Southern Pacific Eailroad Company; and that we will stand as one man till our cause is decided by the United States supreme court." �That resolution, you will see, gentlemen, is broad in its terms. It makes no exception of the judgments of the lower courts, or of the state courts, but whether it intended to em- ����
