This was undoubtedly irregular, but it was nothing more than a
mistake, and there was no ground to impute any malicious motives to
the persons making the order."
Lawrence, J., said:
"There is no instance of an action of this sort maintained for an
act merely from error of judgment. Perhaps the action might have
been maintained, if it had been proved that the defendants'
contriving and intending to injure and prejudice the plaintiff, and
to deprive him of the benefit of his profits from the fishery,
which as a member of this body he was entitled to, according to the
custom, had _wilfully and maliciously_ procured him to be
disfranchised, in consequence of which he was deprived of such
profits. But here there was no evidence of any wilful and malicious
intention to deprive the plaintiff of his profits, or that they had
disfranchised him with that intent, _which is necessary to maintain
this action_. They were indeed guilty of an error in their
proceedings to disfranchise him, in not going into any proof of the
offence charged against him, but taking his silence as a
confession. In the case of _Drewe v. Coulton_, where the action was
against the Mayor of Saltash, who was returning officer, for
refusing the plaintiff's vote at an election, which was claimed in
right of a burgage tenement; Wilson, J.
Pages:
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184