Plumer v. Smith
Superior Court of New Hampshire
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.
Read the full summary
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. It appeared that in October, 1828, one John Smith, junior, son of John Smith, the defendant, was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, and founded upon a complaint against him for passing counterfeit…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Richardson, C. J.
It is not doubted, that an injury resulting to an individual from a crime, may be lawfully adjusted between the offender and such individual.
But it is most unquestionably illegal, in a private individual, to suppress a criminal prosecution, or the evidence necessary to support it-
*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…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Armstrong v. TolerSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- F. J. Harrison & Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- Shaw v. SpoonerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1838
- Hinds v. ChamberlinSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833