Merrill v. Carr

60 N.H. 114

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Decided: June 5, 1880
• Status: Published

Opinion

Bingham, J.

When the plaintiff was discovered carrying away the defendant’s property, a search of his house for other stolen property was contemplated. A part of the consideration of the note was the defendant’s agreement not to search the plaintiff’s. house that night. Issuing a warrant to search a house for stolen property is a proceeding to recover the property and bring the thief to punishment. G. L., c. 255, ss. 2, 3, 4; Morrison Just. & Sher. 260. A contract to suppress a criminal prosecution, even for a limited time, is illegal. The consideration of the note in question was partly the defendant’s agreement not to commence criminal proceedings against the plaintiff before the next day. A note is void if part of the consi de ration is illegal. Hinds v. Chamberlin, 6 N. H. 225, 229, 231; Forshner v. Whitcomb, 44 N. H. 14.

Set-off disallowed.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.