The question presented to the Court, in this case, may be decided by an application of the familiar rule, that in all crimes, under tiie degree of felony, there are no accessories, but that all persons concerned therein, if guilty at all, are principals. This is not an attempt to punish the Defendant for a crime committed by another, but to punish him for an offence imagined, contrived, and partly executed by himself in person, though consummated by another under his direction and appointment. The record distinctly states, that the corrupt agreement was made by the Defendant, and it is evident that it would have been carried through by him to its completion, but for the circumstance, real or feigned, of his not having the money to lend, but only a,note, then in the possession of Slaughter. If this were really the true reason, why he did not lend the money, it shows that he entered fully into the scheme of committing the offence ; and if it was only a pretence, it exhibits a device somewhat awkwardly contrived, and easily penetrated, to evade the statute.
The specific crime then meditated was, that Slaughter should receive tfie note from Hunter, and collect the money wdien due, and that he should also transfer to Hunter, the note then due from Leary. And if the usurious agreement had been thus carried into execution, it would have been impossible to raise a doubt as to the Defendant’s guilt, on Slaughter's receiving the unlawful interest. Slaughter was the Defendant’s agent for the very purpose of committing the crime, and though it was not completed precisely in the manner apparently contemplated, yet the authority given to Slaughter, enabled him to indorse the note to William Coffield, and there*34by led to the perpetration of the offence in a different shape.
These circumstances fully warrant an application of the legal maxim that in investing another with a lawful authority, a man may limit it as strictly as he jileases; and if the party authorised do transgress his authority, though it be but in circumstance expressed, it shall be void in the wiiole act. But where a man is author and mover to another to commit an unlawful act, then he shall not excuse himself by circumstance not pursued. Thus, if a man make a letter of attorney to A. to deliver livery and seisin in the capital messuage, and he doth it in another place of the land; or, between the hours of two and three, and he doth it after or before j in these cases, the act of attorney as to execute the estate is void.
But on the other hand, if a man command A. to rob B. on Shooter’s hill, and he doth it on G-add’s Bill 5 or to rob him,on such a day, and he doth it next day ; or to kill B. and he doth it not himself but procureth C. to do it 5 or to kill him by poison, and he doth it by violence ; — in all these cases, notwithstanding the fact be not executed in circumstance, yet he is accessary nevertheless. Mandato, licita recipiunt strictam interpretalion-cm, sed illicita latam et extensam. — (Bacon’s Maxims— Reg. 16.)
A kindred principle is laid down and illustrated by the same great writer; that all crimes have their inception in a corrupt intent, and have their consummation and issuing in some particular fact; which, though it be not the fact at which the intention of the malefactor was levelled, yet the law givoth him no advantage of the error, if another particular ensue of as high a nature. Therefore, if an empoisoned apple be laid in a place to empoison J. S. and J. D. cometli by chance and eateth it, this is murder in the principal that is actor, and yet the malice in in-dividuo was not against J. D.; so if a thief find a door open, and come in by night and rob a house, and be taken *35with the mainour, and break a door to escape, this is burglary, yet the breaking the door, was without any felonious intent, but it is one entire act. — {Reg. 15.)
These sound and elementary principles of criminal justice, the non-observance of which would derange the harmony of the whole system, and lead to manifold evasions, and a dangerous state of impunity, appear to me to fully justify the view I have taken of this case. They are emphatically just and important in expounding a statute, to escape from the penalties of which, the cupidity of mam-kind is daily inventing colourable pretexts and artful expedients. Without their application, the money lender might make his corrupt bargains, but keeping his funds in another persons hands, refer the borrower to him for the sum wanted, and to secure the repayment by a note, with unlawful interest, which might at once be passed into circulation, for its full value. If, when the money is recovered from the borrower, the lender is deemed innocent, then so far from its being true, as the sages of the law tell us, “that where the real truth is a loan of mdney, the wit of man cannot find a shift to take it out of the statuteit is manifest, that a very simple, and obvious, contrivance would render the law powerless. Like a spider in the centre of its web, ensnaring its prey by distant filaments spun from its own body, the usurer might destroy liis victim, and yet make no other movement than the last fatal one to devour the carcase. There ought, in my opinion, to be a new trial.
The case in 5 Mass. Rep. 53, goes the ‘ full length of deciding that it is no excuse for a lender on. usury, that he acts as agent for another, if he does not disclose at the time of lending that he acted in that capacity; and being a particeps criminis, it is doubtful whether such disclosure at that time could avail him.
I concur in the opinion, that the rule for a new trial should be made absolute.
Henderson, Judge, concurred also.