State v. Leeds

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

The defendants move to quash an-indictment which -charges that they “did take money of the value of *211twenty-five dollars from one P. C. I. upon an agreement to compound the crime óf keeping a disorderly house, contrary,” &c.

It is generally held that, to sustain an indictment for compounding a crime, it must be shown that the crime alleged to have been compounded had been committed. 1 Hale P. C. 619; 4 Blacks. Com. 133; Whart. Crim. L., § 1559; Brittin v. Chegary, Spenc. 635; Swope v. Jefferson Insurance Co., 93 Pa. St. 351.

In some states…