Hiss v. State

Bowie, C. J., delivered the opinion of this Court. An indictment was found against the plaintiff in error, charging that on the 1st of June, 1863, at the City of Baltimore, Silas Wright, a negro, was arrested and brought before the plaintiff in error, who was then and there a Justice of.the Peace of said city, accused of stealing certain bank notes and promissory notes, and upon a hearing by the Justice was discharged ; that at the time of the arrest, Wright was searched and certain bank notes taken from him and delivered to the plaintiff in error, who was in duty bound to deliver the same to the person legally entitled to demand and receive the same ; that William Daniel afterwards became and was legally entitled' to receive the same, and the plaintiff in error, then and there, unlawfully, wilfully, oppressively, corruptly, and in violation and contempt of his duty in that behalf as Justice of the Peace, did neglect and refuse to deliver the bank notes, etc., to the said Daniel, being then and there requested so to do, well knowing the said Daniel was so entitled, etc. Upon which indictment, the plaintiff in error being arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and put himself upon his country, and being found guilty, moved in arrest of judgment, which being overruled, the traverser sued out his writ of error. The points relied on by the plaintiff in error, are : 1st. That a Justice of the Peace is not liable to indictment for error of judgment in the discharge of his official duties. 2nd.

That the indictment did not charge any offence for which the traverser was criminally liable. 3rd. That he was under no legal official obligation to receive or pay over the money. It is one of the most ancient, fundamental and cherished maxims of the common law, that a Judge should not be ⁵⁶¹ liable civilly or criminally, for error in judgment in the discharge of his office. “ This freedom from action and question at the suit of an individual (it has been observed) is given by the law to the Judges, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the public and the advancement of justice, that being free from actions they may be free in thought and independent in judgment, as all who are to administer justice ought to be.” * * * But the law distinguishes between error of judgment and corruption, or wilful neglect of duty. For these there is, and always will be, some due course of punishment by public prosecution.

Brooms’ Legal Maxs., p. 41, L. L., vol. 50. Garnett vs. Ferrand, 6 B. & C., 625, 626. Vaugh, R., 383. Another venerable authority declares, “Justices of the Peace are not