Merrill v. Carr

| N.H. | Jun 5, 1880

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 *115 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 consideration is illegal. Hinds v. Chamberlin, 6 N.H. 225" court="None" date_filed="1833-07-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hinds-v-chamberlin-8503900?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8503900">6 N.H. 225, 229, 231; Forshner v. Whitcomb, 44 N.H. 14" court="N.H." date_filed="1860-09-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/forshner-v-whitcomb-8046920?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8046920">44 N.H. 14.

Set-off disallowed.

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