1. The plans or arrangements amounted to nothing more than mere preparation. The contract of hiring entered into between defendant and Dill also fails to extend beyond mere preparation. 2. Dill not only had no intention of carrying out the expressed purpose of defendant, but was guilty of no act directly or indirectly moving toward the consummation of the intended crime. He did nothing more than listen to the plans and solicitations of defendant without intending to act upon them. It was not shown that Dill committed an act that could be construed as an attempt.