"
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.
Pages:
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186