Somayya, J.

1. The plaintiff appeals against the decrees of the lower Courts dismissing his suit against the defendants 2 and 3. The suit was filed to recover Rs. 2,086-14-6 being the amount due under a promissory note (Ex. A) executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff. The defence which found acceptance in the lower Courts is that the consideration so far as defendants 2 and 3 are concerned was the stifling of a criminal prosecution against the first defendant and therefore illegal under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Both the Courts found against the plaintiff.

2. The first defendant pledged certain packages of goods representing that they contained bottles of condensed milk and jeevamrutham bottles and borrowed money from the plaintiff. The money was not paid and the pledgee took steps to have the goods sold. When the packages were opened for the purpose of sale, it was found that they contained stones, husk, saw dust, waste paper etc. This was clearly a case of cheating. The discovery was made on the 19th September, 1935. That evening the third defendant who is a pleader practising at Masulipatam came to Bezwada and that night there were talks betwee