Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/704

 602 FEDBIÇAL BBPORTBB. �ypu to determine fronj ail the evidence. If they by concert came there for that purpose, then there was a conspiracy, and if there was a conspiracy then the act of one is the act of ail the conspirators. If there was not a conspiracy, then the act of each party was an individual act ; but if there was a resistance in the mode which I have stated, then ail the persons who were present, aiding and abetting, assenting to or approving of that resistance, are particeps criminis in the resistance, and it is for you to determine who did aid and abet, who were there present and assenting ; and the fact of their being there apparently approving, and not interfering or interposing, if such be the fact, is a circumstance for you to consider in determining whether they were assenting and aiding and abetting in carrying out their then present pur- pose. �Now, gentlemen, Hart or Crow was there to receive posses- sion of that land described in the writ from the marshal. The testimony tends to show that Clark was there to point out the landa, he being familiar with the locality. They were a part of the machinery or agencies that were there to be employed for the execution oî that writ. They were there rightfuUy; they were there under the protection of that writ, as, much so as the marshal himself. In order to give pos» session to Crow it was necessary that Crow should be there, and, in order to identify the, land it was necessary to bave some one familiar with it there to point it out. They were there as a part of the machinery of the marshal — a part of the agencies employed — for the purpose of the execution of that writ, and were as much under the shield and protection of that writ as the marshal himself; and any obstruction to their receiving the possession which the marshal should at- tempt to give to them would be an obstruction to the execu- tion of that writ. �Although the condition of things which I bave pointed out and supposed here would make out the offence, still we may proceed further in this matter and consider subsequent events which the testimony disclosea. Now, there was testimony here tending to show that Crow had, on various occasions, ����