thought were essential to be proved in order to sustain the
action."

"_Per Curiam._ Rule discharged."

The Reporter's head note is: "An action does not lie against individuals
for acts erroneously done by them _in a corporate capacity_ from which
detriment has happened to the plaintiff. At least, not without proof of
malice."

The case of _Drewe v. Coulton_ is given at length in a note to _Harman
v. Tappenden and others 1 East 563_, and fully sustains what is said of
it by Mr. Justice Lawrence.

The election was for member to serve in Parliament for the borough of
SALTASH. The defendant was Mayor and returning officer. The question
presented to him was "whether the owners of burgage tenements in the
borough, had a right of voting, or whether that right was confined to
the freemen of the corporation." The defendant had rejected the vote
offered by the plaintiff, he claiming the right as a burgage tenant.

The action was for that refusal, charging the defendant with "contriving
and wrongfully intending to deprive the plaintiff &c., obstructed and
hindered him from giving his vote."

Wilson, J., among other things, says:
"This is in the nature of it, an action for misbehavior by a public
officer in his duty. Now I think, that it cannot be called a
misbehavior, _unless maliciously and wilfully done, and that the
action will not lie for a mistake in law_. The case of the bridge
master is in point [Bul N.P. 64.]. It is there said, that an action
on the case lies against a ministerial officer for _wilful_
misbehavior, as denying a poll for one who is a candidate for an
elective office, such as bridge master &c." "In all the cases put,
the misbehavior must be _wilful and by wilful_ I understand
_contrary to a man's own conviction_. Therefore I think from the
opening of counsel, this is not a wilful refusal of the vote.... In
very few instances is an officer answerable for what he does to the
best of his judgment, in cases where he is compelled to act. But
the action lies where the officer has an option whether he will act
or not. Besides, I think, that if an action were to be brought upon
every occasion of this kind by every person whose vote was refused,
it would be such an inconvenience as the law would not endure. A
returning officer in such a case would be in a most perilous
situation. _This gentleman was put in