Hardison v. Jordan, 1 N.C. 454, 1 Cam. & Nor. 454 (1803)

June 1803 · North Carolina Court of Conference

1 N.C. 454, 1 Cam. & Nor. 454

John Hardison vs. Joseph Jordan.

This action was commenced in Halifax Superior Court of law. The plaintiff declared to wit,

" Joseph Jordan, late of the county of Ber-" tie, was attached, to answer John Hardison " of a plea of trespass on the case, &c. And " whereupon the said John Hardison, by Blake " Baker, his attorney, complains, that, where-" as a certain Amasa Perrin, on the day " of in the year of our Lord, one thousand " seven hundred and ninety-nine, at the county " of Bertie aforesaid, had instituted a suit, by " way of warrant, against the said John Hardi-" son, for the recovery of a sum of money pre-" tended to be due and owing by the said " John Hardison to him the said Amasa Perrin; " and the said suit on the day and year aforesaid, " at the county aforesaid, was tried by the said " Joseph Jordan, a Justice of the Peace of the " said county, who had competent power to try " the same. And he the said Joseph, on such " trial, gave judgment against the said John Har-" dison in favour of the said Amasa Perrin, upon " the said warrant, for the sum of six pounds, be" sides costs of suit. From which judgment of " the said Joseph, the said John prayed an appeal " to the county court of Bertie aforesaid. And " the said John, then and there, offered to the " said Joseph, two good and sufficient securities " for prosecuting the said appeal with effect, to " wit, Samuel Mares and John Harrisson, both " of the said county, then and there being suff-" cient persons, and having each of them, suffi-" cient property within the county aforesaid, and " were good and sufficient securities for the said " John's prosecuting the said appeal with effect, " according to the directions of the act of the " General Assembly in such cases made and pro-“ vided. Nethertheless the said Joseph, being " not ignorant of the premises, and well know-" ing that the said Samuel Mares and John Harrisson were good and sufficient securities for the said appeal, as aforesaid; not considering " the duties of his said office, and disregarding " the directions of the said act of Assembly, but " contriving and maliciously intending unjustly " to aggrieve and oppress the said John in this " behalf, and unjustly and maliciously to deprive " him of his said appeal, and to subject him un-“ justly and maliciously to the payment of the " said unjust judgment and costs, did, then and " there, refuse to accept the said Samuel Mares " and John Harrisson as securities for the said " appeal; and did, then and there, refuse to " grant the said appeal, although he the said Jo-" seph was then and there requested so to do, “ by him the said John, whereby the said John " was unjustly and maliciously deprived of the " said appeal, and was thereby unjustly compelled " to pay the said sum of six pounds, together " with the sum of for the costs of " the said warrant. Wherefore, &c.”

There was another count in substance the same, only, charging that the defendant refused the appeal corruptly, &c.

The jury, on the trial at October term, 1801, found the defendant guilty upon the first count; but not guilty in manner and form as charged in the second count.

The defendant’s counsel moved in arrest of judgment, and filed the following reasons, viz.

" 1st. Because the defendant was acting in his “ judicial capacity as a Justice of the Peace, " when he refused to grant an appeal as com-“ plained of, and stated in the plaintiff's declaration.

" 2d. Because it is not sufficiently stated in “ the plaintiff’s declaration, how the plaintiff “ suffered any damage in consequence of the “ defendant’s refuting to grant the plaintiff an “ appeal.”

The counsel for the defendant argued, that an action at the suit of the party will not lie against a Judge, on an official act—1 Danv. Abr. 179, sec. 1, 2, 4.

Or a justice of the peace for what he doth while acting as such. 2 Haw. Pleas of the Crown. ch. 13, sec. 20. Carth. 494. Bacon’s Abr. Appendix, Justice of the Peace, F.

By the Court.

A civil action is maintainable against a justice of the peace acting in his office out of court, either maliciously, oppressively or corruptly. 2 Stra. 710.

The declaration states, “ the said John was " unjustly and maliciously deprived of his said appeal, and thereby unjustly compelled to pay " the said sum of fix pounds, with the sum of " for the costs of said warrant”. This appears to us to be sufficiently certain; We are therefore of opinion the reasons in arrest of judgment, ought to be overruled.