A promissory note, given to secure the restoration of stolen property, is void if a part of its consideration is an agreement not to search the house of the thief for the property before the next day, pending negotiations for a settlement of the matter.
BINGHAM, J.
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 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, 229, 231; Forshner v. Whitcomb, 44 N.H. 14.
Set-off disallowed.
SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred.