COMPOUNDING A FELONY. The act of a party immediately aggrieved, who agrees with a thief or other felon that he will not.
prosecute him, on condition that he return to him the goods stolen, or who takes a re ward not to prosecute. See State v. Buck master, 2 Harr. (Del.) 532; Bothwell v. Brown, 51 Ill. 234; Chandler v. Johnson, 39 Ga. 85; Powell v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 342, 101 S. W. 1006.
This is an offence punishable by fine and imprisonment, and at common law rendered the person committing it an accessory ; Hawk. Pl. Cr. 125. And a conviction may be had though the person guilty of the original offence has not been tried; Watt v. State, 97 Ala. 72, 11 South. 901; or if no.offence lia ble to a penalty has been committed by the person from whom the consideration is re ceived; State v. Carver, 69 N. H. 216, 39 Atl. 973. A failure to prosecute for an as sault with an intent to kill is not compound ing a felony ; Phillips v. Kelly, 29 Ala. 628. The accepting of a promissory note signed by a party guilty of larceny, as a considera tion for not prosecuting, is sufficient to con stitute the offence; Com. v. Pease, 16 Mass. 91; and the offence is committed although the consideration is for another than the one making the agreement ; State v. Ruthven, 58 Ia. 121, 12 N. W. 235. The mere retaking by the owner of stolen goods is no offence, unless the offender is not to be prosecuted ; Hale, Pl. Cr. 546; 1 Chit. Cr. Law 4; Clarke, Cr. L. 329; Bothwell v. Brown, 51 III. 234.
In an indictment for compounding a felony, it must be alleged that the felony was com mitted by the person with whom the corrupt agreement is made ; State v. Hodge, 142 N. C. 665, 55 S. E. 626, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 709, 9 Ann. Cas. 563. The agreement not to pros ecute being the gist of the offense, it must be clearly charged ; Williams v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 1, S. W. 149. An information is insufficient if it fails to allege that the de fendant intended to hinder the course of jus tice and allow the felon to escape unpunish ed; State v. Wilson, 80 Vt. 249, 67 Ati. 533. See note 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 484.
The compounding of misdemeanors, as it is also a perversion or defeating of public justice, is in like manner an indictable of fence at common law ; Jones v. Rice, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 440, 29 Am. Dec. 612; Pearce v. Wilson, 111 Pa. 14, 2 Atl. 99, 56 Am. Rep. 243; McMahon v. Smith, 47 Conn. 221, 36
Am. Rep. 67. But the law will permit a compromise of any offence, though made the subject of a criminal prosecution, for which the injured party might recover damages in an action.
There is said to be no reported case in England for compounding a misdemeanor, but that in grave cases (perjury or rioting) it'would be held an offence ; such agreements in lesser cases are often sanctioned by courts. and in cases when the injured party can both sue and prosecute (especially for an assault) compromises are not illegal and will be enforced; Odgers, C. L. 202, citing L.
R. 10 Ch. 297. But, if the offence is of a public nature, no agreement can be valid that is founded on the consideration of sti fling a prosecution for it; 6 Q. B. 308; Fay v. Oatley, 6 Wis. 42; Buck v. Bank, 27 Mich. 293, 15 Am. Rep. 189 ; Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105; Jones v. Rice, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 440, 29 Am. Dec. 612; State v. Carver, 69 N. H. 216, 39 Atl. 973.
Compounding a felony is an indictable of fence. No action can be supported on any contract of which such offence is the con sideration in whole or in part; Com. v. Pease, 16 Mass. 91; Mattacks v. Owen, 5 Vt 42 ; Plumer v. Smith, 5 N. H. 553, 22 Am. Dec. 478; People v. Buckland, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 592; Sneed v. Com., 6 Dana (Ky.) 338; Levy v. Ross, T. U. P. Charlt. (Ga.) 292. A receipt in full of all demands given in consideration of stifling a criminal prosecu tion is void; Bailey v. Buck, 11 Vt. 252. A contract which is void as compounding a felony is incapable of ratification; Stanard v. Sampson, 23 Okl. 13, 99 Pac. 796; the law leaves the parties where it finds them; it will neither aid in enforcing the contract, nor permit a recovery of the consideration; Town of Cottonwood v. Austin, 158 Ala. 117, 48 South. 345; Jourdan v. Burstow, 76 N. J. Eq. 55, 74 Atl. 124, 139 Am. St. Rep. 741.
Proceedings on a judgment by confession will be enjoined where the consideration was stifling a prosecution for forgery; Given's Appeal, 121 Pa. 260, 15 AU. 468, 6 Am. St. Rep. 795. An injunction will be granted against action on a note given in considera tion of compounding a felony ; Porter v. Jones, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 313; 13 Sim. 513; contra, Adams v. Barrett, 5 Ga. 404; Allison v. Hess, 28 Ia. 388; Williams v. Englebrecht, 37 Ohio St. 383 ; Rock v. Mathews, 35 W. Va. 537, 14 S. E. 137, 14 L. R. A. 508.