Bevard v. Hoffman

Bartol, J., -delivered the opinion of this Court. The plaintiff in this case,-as shown by the record, was a citizen of- Carroll county legally entitled to vote at a Presidential election held in that county; the defendants were judges of election duly appointed,-commissioned and qualified, and acting as such.- The declaration charges that the defendants “then and there refused to receive from the plaintiff the ballot which he was authorized by law to cast at said election, and to deposit the same in the said ballot box, and then and there refused to permit the plaintiff to vote at said election.” The defendants demurred to the declaration, thus raising the question, whether the matters therein alleged are sufficient in law to entitle the plaintiff to maintain his action. In some aspects ⁴⁸³ this question is one of groat interest and importance; the ;:'g¡u»; alleged to have been violated,is justly esteemed as one of the most precious and valuable belonging to the citizen,, _ In our State, where almost every public officer is chosen by the votes of the people, the right of suffrage cannot be too highly prized or too carefully protected. At the same time the nature of our institutions equally demands, that public officers, acting faithfully and honestly in the discharge of their duties, and within the limits of their constitutional powers, shall be protected from liability for mistake or errors of judgment from which none are exempt; provided they are unmixed with fraud or corruption.

In this case no fraud or corruption is charged in the declaration, but the appellant, contends, that his right of suffrage being conceded, the defendants are liable to him for damages for depriving him of that right, no matter how innocently they may have acted in the matter. In passing on this question we deem it proper to premise, that the office held and exercised by the defendants, was, in its nature, judicial; the law having necessarily confided to them the duty of exercising judgment in the discharge of their functions. In such a case, this court is of opinion, the officer cannot be held legally responsible for any thing more than