1 D. Chip. 137 | Vt. | 1797
gave the following charge to the Jury: There are, in this case, two questions — one of fact, and the other of láw.— The question of fact for the Jury to decide is, whether the two notes given by the defendant to the plaintiff of which the note in question is one, and the bond, which was at the same time executed by the plaintiff to the defendant, were parte of the same transaction mutually connected; or in other words, whether the bond was in whole or in part a leading consideration or inducement to the defendant .in giving the notes.
After stating the evidence in the case, he observed — It is difficult to disconnect the notes and the bond even in idea. — They were made at the same time, between the same parties, and relative to, and for the settlement of the same matters. Though the plaintiff said that the notes must be paid although his daughter should appear as a witness against the defendant’s son, yet the defendant would not sign the notes but on condition that the plaintiff would execute the bond; and the bond was executed, and the notes were signed. The execution of the bond then by the plaintiff was a part of the mutual compromise then made; and must, under the circumstances of a pending prosecution for a most enormous crime against the defendant’s son, have been a most powerful inducement to the defendant to sign the notes. If the fact be so, the law on this point is clear. The suppression of evidence in criminal prosecutions is clearly criminal; it is an indictable offence. An agreement to sup
Verdict for the defendant.
