All that is ever required of an officer, so placed, whether a judicial
or ministerial officer, _so far as is necessary to escape any
imputations of crime_, is good faith.
Ministerial officers may be required, in some cases to act at their
peril as to _civil_ responsibilities, but as to _criminal
responsibilities_ never.
Inspectors of elections, however, _acting in good faith_, incur neither
civil nor criminal responsibilities.
In _Jenkins vs. Waldron (11 John 114)_, which was an action on the case
against inspectors of election for refusing to receive the vote of the
plaintiff, a duly qualified voter, it was held, that the action would
not lie _without proving malice_. Spencer, J., delivering the opinion of
the Court, closes as follows: "It would in our opinion be opposed to all
the principles of law, justice and sound policy, to hold that officers
called upon to exercise their deliberate judgments, _are answerable for
a mistake in law_, either civilly or criminally, where their motives are
pure and untainted with fraud or malice."
The same point precisely was decided in a like case, in the Supreme
Court of this State recently and _Jenkins vs. Waldron approved_.
Goetchens vs. Mathewson, 5 Lansing, 214.
In Harman v.
Pages:
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182