
    THE STATE vs. CATHARINE CHRISTIANBURY & GEORGE HERMON.
    The offence of conspiracy to cheat and defraud, is not embraced within the exceptions of the Act of 1836, (Rev. Stat. ch. 35, sec. 8,) limiting* the time in which prosecutions for misdemeanors shall commence.
    The word deceit in the Act seems to' have been used for cheating by false tokens, (which offence may be committed by one person,) and is distinct from the offence of conspiracy y the gist whereof consists in the confederation (by two or more) to do .the act charged.
    (The case of the State v. Waits, 10 Ire. 369, cited and approved.)
    The defendants were indieted for a conspiracy. Pleas, not guilty and Slat. Limitations. On the tidal before his Honor Judge Manly, at the Superior Court of Law of Alexander, af Fall Term, 1851, the indictment charged, and the facts in substance were, that in order to defraud James Vincannon out of the collection of a judgment which he had obtained against Catharine Christianbury before a Justice of the Peace, the defendants agreed that Catharine should sell all her property to George Hermon, and that he should pay her the money for it. To this ceremony, a witness was to be called. It was further agreed, that the money was then to be returned to Hermon, and he was to hold title to the property upon a secret trust for her. Accordingly, a considerable amount of property (more than sufficient to satisfy the judgment) was, in the presence of a witness, transferred between the parties, and the purchase money paid; and this purchase money was refunded, in accordance with the understanding between them, as above stated. This transaction took place about two and half years before the finding of the bill of indictment. It was contended for the defendants, that these facts did not amount to an indictable offence; and if so, that it was barred bjr the Statute of Limitations. His Honor was, however, of a different opinion, and so instructed the jury, who returned a verdict of guilty; and judgment being pronounced thereon, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
    This case was argued at the last Morganton Term by—
    The Attorney General, for tire State.
    
      W. F. Calckoell, for the defendants; and after an advisari until the present Term, the opinion of the Court was delivered by
   Nash, C. J.

Whether the facts charged in this indictment amount to an indictable offence or not, we do not feel called on to decide, as there is another point upon which we think his Hon- or below erred. The acts which are charged in the indictment, as constituting the offence, took place more than two years before the. prosecution was commenced. By the Act of 1836, (Rev. Stat. ch. 35, sec. 8,) it is provided that in all tresspasses and other misdemeanors, except tire offences of perjury, forgery, malicious mischief and deceit, the prosecution shall commence within two years after the commission,” &c., “and not after” &c. It is our opinion that no one of the exceptions extends to this case. On behalf of the State, it is argued that the facts stated amount to deceit. The indictment is for a. conspiracy to commit a fraud upon the prosecutor, or it may be said, to cheat or deceive him. This is a distinct offence from that of cheating or deceiving him. One person alone may he indicted for an indictable offence of this character. To constitute a conspiracy, two or more persons must combine. A husband and wife cannot be indicted for the latter offence, because in law, they are but one person. So an indictment for cheating must set forth the means by which it was effected, and the injury sustained by tire prosecutor; and the proof must correspond with the allegation ; Arch. Crim. Practice 247. In an indictment for a conspiracy, the unlawful confederation is the gist of the offence; and it is not necessary to allege, or show in evidence, that any injury has been sustained. In the Commonwealth v. Warren & others, 6 Mass. Rep. 74, which was an indictment, for a conspiracy to cheat, it is decided by the Court, that the conspiracy is the gist of the offence; and in the case of the Commonwealth v. Davis, 9 Mass. Rep. 415, the Court say, “ upon an indictment for a conspiracy to cheat, the gist of the offence is the conspiracy, and the cheating is but aggravation.” One person, therefore, may be indicted for cheating, under circumstances which malee it a criminal offence; and when it is committed by more than one, they may be indicted for a conspiracy.

The word “deceit” is used in the act we are considering, and we presume it is used, as being the same as cheating by false tokens. Neither Mr. Archbold nor Mr. Russell has any such head as “deceiving ”; and all the precedents in the former upon the subject, are for cheating. The charge in this indictment is for a conspiracy, and not for cheating the prosecutor, and does not come within the exceptions. It was necessary then that the indictment or prosecution should have commenced within two years next before the indictment was found or presentment made, unless the offenders come within one or the other of the provisos to the act. It is contended that it does come within tbe last; that is, that the offence was committed in a secret manner, and that the indictment was found in two years after it was discovered. There is nothing ip the case to show that the offence was committed in a secret manner. On the contrary, it states expressly that a witness was called to witness the transaction between the parties; and as it was observed by the Court in the case of the State v. Watts 10 Ire. 374, “there is not a circumstance of concealment, by the offender, more than there is of secrecy in the offcncei”

As the crime of conspiracy is not embraced in the exceptions contained in the Act of 1836, and it is not shown that the defendants were within any of the exceptions, and that the indictment was found after more than two years from the commission of the offence, the time limited in the Act is a bar to the prosecution-

• Pee. Cueiam. Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.  