ies, but as to _criminal
responsibilities_ never.

Inspectors of elections, however, _acting in good faith_, incur neither
civil nor criminal responsibilities.

In _Jenkins vs. Waldron (11 John 114)_, which was an action on the case
against inspectors of election for refusing to receive the vote of the
plaintiff, a duly qualified voter, it was held, that the action would
not lie _without proving malice_. Spencer, J., delivering the opinion of
the Court, closes as follows: "It would in our opinion be opposed to all
the principles of law, justice and sound policy, to hold that officers
called upon to exercise their deliberate judgments, _are answerable for
a mistake in law_, either civilly or criminally, where their motives are
pure and untainted with fraud or malice."

The same point precisely was decided in a like case, in the Supreme
Court of this State recently and _Jenkins vs. Waldron approved_.

Goetchens vs. Mathewson, 5 Lansing, 214.

In Harman v. Tappenden and fifteen others (1 East 555) the plaintiff was
a freeman of the company of free fishermen and dredgermen of the manor
and hundred of Faversham in Kent, and the defendants, as officers of the
company, caused him "wrongfully, unlawfully and unjustly" to be
disfranchised, and removed from his said office of freeman. He was
restored by mandamus, and brought his action on the case against the
defendants who removed him, to recover his damages.

On the trial before Lord Kenyon, C.J., a verdict was taken for the
plaintiff for nominal damages, with leave to the defendant to move to
enter a non-suit.

On that motion Lord Kenyon, C.J., said:

"Have you any precedent to show that an action of this sort will
lie, without proof of malice in the defendants, or that the act of
disfranchisement was done on purpose to deprive the plaintiff of
the particular advantage which resulted to him from his corporate
character? I believe this is a case of the first impression, where
an action of this kind had been brought, _upon a mere mistake, or
error in judgment_. The plaintiff had broken a by-law, for which he
had incurred certain penalties, and happening to be personally
present in the court, he was called upon to show cause why he
should not pay the forfeitures; to which not making any answer, but
refusing to pay them, the court proceeded, taking the offense _pro
confesso_, without any proof, to call