The corner-stone of our system of government is that it is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It follows, that any public
*1004
officer is a public servant, responsible to the sovereign, the people. The responsibility attaches for acts of omission, as well as commission. For such malfeasances, the trial for some officials is by impeachment, for those of lesser degree by indictment and trial by jury. Section 1090 of
The Gode
creates two distinct offences : One is the wilful omission, nеglect or refusal to discharge any of the duties of his office. ’ This is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imрrisonment not exceeding two years. The o.ther is the wilful and corrupt action of an officer, whethеr by commission or omission, contrary to the true intent of his oath of office. Upon conviction for the latter offence, termed by statute misbehavior in office, 'the officer must, by the sentence of the сourt, be removed from office besides being fined and imprisoned at the discretion of the court.
State
v. Pritchard,
In this case there is no proof of cоrrupt intent, but the charge is that the defendants wilfully and unlawfully neglected. and omitted to discharge the trust reposed in them, by “selling for the sum of twenty-one dollars, a price grossly inadequate and less than could by reasonable effort have been obtained in cash, 35,000 shingles readily worth seventy dollars.” There was evidencе sufficient to go to the jury to prove the charge. The shingles had recently cost the County $87.50 and they were sold by the chairman at private sale (together with some lumber of his own) at twenty-one dollars, and the оther defendants had assented to his action. There was no advertisement, and the defendants offerеd no evidence that they had made inquiry or endeavored to get a better price. The Court correctly *1005 refused to charge that unless a corrupt intent was shown the jury must acquit, and told the jury if the defendants wilfully and negligently omitted or refused to perform their duty, or negligently and wilfully abused their discretion in regard to the salе of the-shingles, as charged in the bill of indictment, the defendants were guilty. To the above charge and refusаl to charge the defendants excepted. The jury found them guilty. They were fined one penny each аnd appealed.
There is no exception to the indictment or the admissibility of evidence. The Judgе told the jury that the defendants had the right to sell at private sale. The conviction is not for selling at privаte sale nor at a low price, but for wilful negligence in not caring for the County property by selling “at а grossly inadequate price and, at much less than by reasonable effort could have been obtаined.” The County is entitled to be protected not only against dishonesty in the sale of public propеrty, but against want of reasonable effort to obtain a fair price.' The gross inadequacy in the price obtained and the sale without opportunity given in some way, either by inquiry or advertisement, for comрetition was simply evidence offered to show negligence in the discharge of this duty, to obtain a fair price.
The indictment under the first clause of the Act, which is but an affirmance of the common law, lies against officers for wilful neglect of duty, not for mere errors of judgment. 2 "Wharton Cr. Law, Sec. 1568. But we think that the charge is sufficient in this respect and under the instruction given by the Court the jury must have concluded that the neglect was wilful.
In State v. Hawkins, 77 N. C., 494, it is held that any public officer is liable to indictment at common law for any wilful neglect of his duties or any abuse of his powers. The *1006 sale of the shingles in question was a matter entrusted to the defendants as public officеrs. They did not sell them corruptly. But it is found by the jury that they negligently sold them at less than one-third their cost and at a priсe grossly inadequate and less than could with reasonable effort have been obtained for them. Was a sale made by them without such reasonable effort, and thereby devolving loss on the county, a wilful neglеct or abuse of the powers and duties entrusted to them ? It would seem clear that it was. If it was not, then it cоuld hardly be possible to find an instance in which the common law or the first part of section 1090 would apрly, but public officers would be liable for no malfeasance except in cases in which a corrupt intent is alleged and proved. This cannot be the law. Whether such conduct is an omission or negleсt of duty which comes within the first clause of section 1090 of The Oode, or is a neglect of duty at common law, is immaterial. In the present case, honesty and good intent are not a full defence. However honest the defendants may be (and their honesty is not called in question) the public have a right to 'be protected аgainst the wrongful conduct of their servants, if there is carelessness amounting to a wilful want of care in the discharge of their official duties, which injures the public.
No Error.