Sec 483

Not only is it an indictable offence to compound a felony,7 but all contracts to abate or compromise criminal offences of any class are held void as against the policy of the law. "It is to the interest of the public that the suppression of a prosecution should not be made matter of private bargain."8

Contracts to run foreign blockade not illegal.

Contracts to compound offences void.

1 Wh. Con. of L. sec 1.

2 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1903; see supra, sec 343, where this topic is more fully discussed.

3 Bluntschli, sec 764, and authorities cited in Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1903.

4 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1904. 5 Ibid., sec 1907.

6 Kent, iii. 267; Wh. Con. of L. sec 496 a; Chavasse ex parte, 4 D. J. S. 655; The Helen, L. R. 1 Ad. & Ec. 1.

7 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1559.

8 Clubb v. Hutson, 18 C. B. N. S. 414, by Erle, C. J.; and to same effect see remarks of Fry, J., in Whitmore v. Farley, 43 L. T. N. S. 192; S. P.Ward.

This rule has been held to apply to an agreement to acknowledge the signature of a forged bill in consideration of the holder forbearing to prosecute the forger;1to an agreement for the compromise of a prosecution for an offence subjecting the party to a pecuniary forfeiture;2 to taking security for the amount of forged bills with an understanding that the prosecution should not be pressed;3 to an agreement to settle a riotous assault involving a forcible interference with a public officer when executing his duties;4 to a note given on consideration not to prosecute a larceny;5 to an agreement of which the consideration is to abandon prosecution for embezzlement;6 to an agreement to suspend extradition proceedings against a fugitive;7 to a bond given in consideration of the obligee not proceeding to prosecute a charge of perjury;8 to a promissory note given in consideration of not prosecuting a charge of obtaining money on false pretences;9 and to a mortgage given by a wife in consideration of a prosecution for false pretences against the husband being withdrawn.10 v.Allen, 2 Met. 57; McMahon v. Smith, 47 Conn. 221; Von Windisch v. Klaus, 46 Conn. 433; People v. Buckland, 13 Wend. 592; Den v. Moore, 2 South. 470; Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio, 400; Henderson v. Palmer, 71 111. 579; Wisner v. Bardwell, 38 Mich. 278; Chandler v. Johnson, 39 Ga. 85; Baker v. Farris, 61 Mo. 389; Snyder v. Wil-ley, 33 Mich. 483.

1Brook v. Hook, L. R. 6 Ex. 89. It has ben held, however, not compounding felony for a person whose name has ben forged to adopt the signature and give money to the forger to enable him to pay the note forged. Caldecott ex parte, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 150.

2 Edgcombe v. Rodd, 5 East, 294.

3 Williams v. Bayley, L. R. 1 H. L. 200.

4Keir v. Leeman, 9 Q. B. 371; see Williams v. Bayley, L. R. 1 H. L. 200.

5Supra, sec 151 a; Com. v. Pease, 16 Mass. 91; Chandler v. Johnson, 39 Ga. 89; and see generally Whitmore v. Farley, 43 L. T. N. S. 192; Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105; Taylor v. Jaques, 106 Mass. 291.

6 Fivaz v. Nichols, 2 C. B. 501; Critchley ex parte, 3 D. & L. 527; Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105. And so as to embezzlement by bailee, constituting statutory larceny. Whitmore v. Farley, infra, sec 484.

7Dixon v. Olmstead, 9 Vt. 310.

8 Rawlings v. Coal Consumers' Co., 43 L. J. M. 11l; Hinds v. Chamberlain, 6 N. H. 225.

9 Clubb v. Hutson, 18 C. B. N. S. 414; Shaw v. Spooner, 9 N. H. 197; see Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105.

10 McMahon v. Smith, 47 Conn. 221. And see generally as sustaining the text, Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105; Shaw v. Spooner, 9 N. H. 197; Bowen v. Buck, 28 Vt. 308; Pierce v. Kibbee, 51 Vt. 559; Com. v. Johnson, 3 Cush. 454; Sharon v. Gager, 46 Conn. 189; Von Windisch v. Klaus, 46 Conn. 433; National Bank of Oxford v. Kirk, 90.

To sustain a charge of compounding crime, it must appear that there was an agreement not to prosecute, and by a preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed.1 - It is important here to observe the difference in this relation between the defence of duress and that of compounding crime. To sustain the defence of duress it is not necessary to show that the party making the promise was guilty of any wrong.2 To sustain the defence that the consideration was the compounding of a crime, it is necessary to show by a preponderance of proof that a crime was committed. But, without such proof, an agreement by parties to settle a criminal prosecution is invalid.3 - A mortgage-note given in consideration of compounding a prosecution for forgery is bad in the hands of an assignee for value, but with notice;4 though it is otherwise as to party without notice.5 - An agreement, also, not to expose immoral conduct has been held void.6 - Money paid inadvertently, and not with criminal intent, to compound a prosecution, cannot be recovered back.7 - A forged endorsement cannot be ratified, this being against public policy;8 though a party may estop himself from setting up forgery.

Penn. St. 49; Shisler v. Vandike, 92 Penn. St. 447; Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio, 400; 7 Ohio, 76; Buck v. Bank, 27 Mich. 293; Fay v. Oatley, 6 Wis. 42; Kimbrough v. Lane, 11 Bush, 556; Gardner v. Maxey, 9 B. Mon. 90; Cor-ley v. Williams, 1 Bailey, 588; Bell v. Wood, 1 Bay, 249; Robinson v. Cran-shaw, 2 St. & P. 276; Averbeck v. Hall, 14 Bush, 505; Ozanne v. Haber, 30 La. An. Part II. 1384. And see supra, sec 151 a, for cases of contracts void from the duress so applied.

1 Swope v. Ins. Co., 93 Penn. St. 251; Catlin v. Henton, 9 Wis. 476. In Nat. Bk. v. Kirk, 90 Penn. St. 49, "the defendant offered testimony tending to show that he was induced to give the note in consequence of the threatened prosecution of his son for forgery, coupled with the representation of one of the officers of the bank that if the note was given it would probably be paid by the son, and ' no one would then know anything about' the forgery. This tended to show an agreement on the part of the bank not to prosecute, and the question was accordingly submitted to the jury." Sterrett, J., 93 Penn. St. 254.

2 Supra, sec 148 et seq.

3 Supra, sec 151; infra, sec 484.

4 Pierce v. Kibbee, 51 Vt. 559; Smith v. Bank, 9 Neb. 31.

5 Ibid.; supra, sec 146.

6 Brown v. Brine, L. R. 1 Ex. D. 5; see supra, sec 415.

7 Mapleback in re, L. R. 4 C. D. 150; Butt ex parte, 46 L. J. B. 14; 13 Cox C. C. 374, cited Leake, 2d ed. 928; infra, sec 741.

8 Shisler v. Vandike, 92 Penn. St. 447.