How have courts interpreted the concept of soliciting someone to commit a crime by offering a reward for information leading to the crime?

[36 Cal.App.3d 457] In Stabler v. Commonwealth, 95 Pa. 318, the defendant offered a reward, gave directions to another person on how to commit the crime, and furnished him with the poison. The person solicited testified he never had any intention of administering the poison and never did anything towards it. It was there held that there was no attempt to commit the crime upon the rationale that to comsummate a crime something more than mere solicitation of another to commit it is necessary. (95 Pa. at pp. 321--322.)