FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123  
124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   >>   >|  
nation since have considered that the refusal must be _wilful and malicious_ in order to support the action.... "And in my opinion, it cannot be said, that because an officer is mistaken in a point of law, this action will lie against him.... It has also been said, that this is not like a case where a burdensome office is thrown upon a man, without his consent, wherein he is compellable to act; for that here the defendant has chosen to become a member of a corporation by which he had put himself in a situation to become a returning officer, and therefore that he is _bound to understand the whole law as far as it relates to his public situation, and is answerable for any determination he may make contrary to that law. But I much doubt whether that rule be generally true_; and in the present instance I am clearly of opinion that the want of malice is a full defense." Lawrence, J., sat with Wilson. The plaintiff was nonsuited and no new trial was moved for. _Bernardiston v. Some_ (2 Lev. 114, 1 East. 586, note b.) was an action against the sheriff of Suffolk, charging that the defendant, intending to deprive him of the office of Knight of the Shire, made a double return. Upon a trial at bar, Twysden, Rainsford, and Wylie Js. held, and so directed the jury, that if the return was made _maliciously_, they ought to find for the plaintiff, which they did and gave him L800. On motion in arrest of judgment, Hale, C.J., being in court; he, Twysden & Wylie, Js. held that for as much as the return was laid to be _falso et malitiose et ea intentione_, to put the plaintiff to charge and expense, and so found by the jury, the action lay. Rainsford, J., doubted. But notwithstanding this charge of malice, judgment was reversed _in Cam scacc (vide 3 Lev. 30_) and that judgment of reversal was affirmed in Parliament. Lord Chief justice North's first reason against the action was, because the sheriff as to declaring the Mayoralty is _judge_ and no action will lie against a judge for what he does judicially, though it should be laid _falso malitiose et scienter_. This reversal occasioned the passage of the statute (7 and 8 W. III c. 7) which gives an action against the returning officer, for all false returns "wilfully made, and for double returns _falsely, wilfully and maliciously made_." _Groenvelt v. Burwell & al_ (1 Salk. 396, S.C. 2 Ld Ray. 230, Comyns 76.)
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123  
124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

action

 

return

 

judgment

 
officer
 
plaintiff
 

reversal

 

charge

 

malitiose

 
returning
 

Twysden


malice
 

situation

 

double

 

Rainsford

 

maliciously

 

sheriff

 

returns

 

office

 
wilfully
 

opinion


defendant

 

motion

 

arrest

 

Comyns

 

directed

 

falsely

 

Groenvelt

 

Burwell

 

justice

 

scienter


affirmed

 

Parliament

 
declaring
 

Mayoralty

 

judicially

 

reason

 

expense

 
statute
 
intentione
 

doubted


notwithstanding

 
occasioned
 

reversed

 

passage

 
consent
 
compellable
 

burdensome

 

thrown

 

chosen

 

understand