Runnells v. Fletcher

Jun 15, 1819
Reporters:
Curia.

To subject an officer to the penalty prescribed by the statute, it must ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍be proved that the sum, alleged to * have been extorted, was demanded as a fee for some official duty. He must have wilfully ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍and corruptly demanded and received other or greater fees than the law allows.

*467By the facts reported in this case, if any offence has been committed, ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍it is not against the statute on which the action is brought, but must be extortion at common law. (a) The excess demanded was not as ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍and for fees of service, but as a compensation for labor and trouble attending a supposed injury which happened before. The action cannot, therefore, ‍‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍be maintained upon these facts. (b)

New trial granted.

Notes

Commonwealth vs. Bayley, 7 Pick. 279.

Dunlop vs. Curtis, 10 Mass. Rep. 210. — Shattuck vs. Wood, 1 Pick. 171. — Commonwealth vs. Shed, 1 Mass. Rep. 227.