Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 N.H. 553

Plumer v. Smith

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 15, 1832

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1832-01-15

Assumpsit upon a note for $460, dated January 31, 1829, made by the defendants, and payable to one G. Towle, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. The cause was tried here, at August term, 1831, upon the general issue. The making and the endorsing of the note were admitted by the defendants. The defence was, that the consideration of the note was illegal.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Compounding A Felony”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1832-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1898

8 state decisions

301832184018501860187018801890decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Richardson, C. J.

¶2It is not doubted, that an injury resulting to an individual from a crime, may be lawfully adjusted between the offender and such individual.

¶3But it is most unquestionably illegal, in a private individual, to suppress a criminal prosecution, or the evidence necessary to support it-

¶4*555Bayley on Bills, 357 ; Chitty on Bills, 68 ; 3 Espin. N. P. C. 253, Norman v. Cole ; 1 B. & A. 282 ; 11 Mass Rep. 368, Worcester v. Eaton ; 11 East, 45, Beeley v. Wingfield ; 1 Starkies’ N. P. C. 467, Harding v. Cooper; 2 Wilson, 347, Collins v. Blantern ; 5 East, 294, Edgecombe v. Rudd.

¶5And it is now well settled, that a note given for money knowingly lent, to be applied to accomplish an illegal purpose, is void. 3 Taunton, 6, Webb v. Brooke ; 4 Burr. 2069, Faikney v. Reynous ; 3D. & E. 418, Petrie v. Hannay ; 6 ditto, 61, Steers v. Lashley ; 5 ditto, 596, Waymell Cockburne ; 3 Vesey, 373, ex parte, Mather; 2 B. & P. 371, Aubert v. Mase.

¶6The case of Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheaton, 258, lays down no rute inconsistent with this principle, but admits it. It is only decided there, that, if the promise is entirely disconnected with the illegal act, and is founded on a new consideration, it is not affected by the act, although it was known to the party to whom the promise was made, and although he was the contriver and conductor of the illegal act. It is admitted, that if the promise be immediately connected with the illegal act, it is void.

¶7We think that the instructions given to the jury in this case, were entirely correct. If the plaintiff advanced the money to the defendant, John Smith, knowing it was to be used to stop the prosecution and suppress the evidence, it was illegally advanced, and cannot he considered as a legal consideration, which can sustain the the note. The consideration was immediately connected with the illegal act.

¶8Some part of the money may have gone to pay damages, to which the prosecutors were justly entitled. But that circumstance can make no difference in the case; For even that must be considered as paid to effect an illegal purpose, and induce the prosecutors to abandon the prosecution,

¶9Judgment on the verdict.

/5/nh/553 · .json · Public domain