The Calcutta Law Journal Short Notes of Cases Articles and other Matters April 16 1908

The reason of the rule is found clearly stated in the decision of the House of Lords in Williams v. Bayley (1) where Lord Westbury says “New such being the nature of the transaction my Lords I apprehend the law to be this and unquestionably it is a law dictated by the soundest considerations of policy and morality that you shall not make a trade of a felony. [...] There the suit was for the recovery of a certain jewel and a bond deposited by the plaintiff with the first defendant in pursuance of a razeinama in a criminal case of wrongful restraint brought against the plaintiff by the second defendant. [...] In Kandan Chetti v. Coovee Seit (3) the suit was to recover money on dealings in hundis which the plaintiff carried on with the second defendant and the plaintiff also relied on a promise by the first defendant to pay the amount due by his son (second defendant) it was found that the promise by the first defendant was made in con sideration of the plaintiff’s foregoing criminal prosecution of h [...] A similar view was taken in the case of Slirangachariar v. Ramasawmi Ayynagar (4) where the suit was for a declaration of the invalidity of an agreement on the ground of coercion and also because part of the consideration for it was the withdrawal of a pending criminal charge of trespass and theft laid against the plaintiffs. [...] On the other hand in the case of Jeetoo Mahato v. Moneeram Mahato (4) where the suit was for a refund of money voluntarily paid by the plaintiff to the defendant to induce him to suppress a criminal prosecution for the charge of murder it was held that the plaintiff having been a party to the illegal purpose could not recover the money.