Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1874-05-06
THE vEXED QUESTION.
Judee Flippin Holds that Magis-
trates sitting I'm Quarterly Court
are only Entitled 10 Two Dollars
Der Day. N

D0E nay
T sS "; Indictment for Hztortion.
It is agreed on behalf of the State and
the defendant, Lyon, that he was a
magistrate of Shelby county; that while
acting as such the County Court voted
its members FIVE dollars per day, and
that he received the same as compen-
sation for his services while sitting in
the County Court. 1t is agreed that be
was not a member of the Quorum Court.
1t is also agreed between the State and
the counsel representing the different
magistrates who have been indicted
upon the sane state of facts for che
same offense, that. this shall be a test
case, and by its determination they will
be governed.
The indictment is for extortion, and
rests upon section 1910 of the Code,
which declares it to be a misdemeanor
" for any person knowingly to demand
and receive of another for performing
any service or official duty for which the
fee or compensation is established by
law. any greater fee or compensation
than is legally allowed or provided. r"
Extortion is the taking by color of an
Office money or other thing OF value that
is not due, before it is due, or more than
is DUE Black, Gan. l4l. The party
must knowingly demand and receive for
performing his official duty greater
sum than is allowed by law for bis ser
vices. By the term knowingly, we
understand wilfully, Intentionally; that
is to say, that be intended to take the
sum be did take. II by mistake of fact
he took more, he would notin that event
knowingly, wiltully or Intentionally have
taken It. IL by oversight, for instance,
he intended TO take five dollar bill to
which he was legally entitled for his com.
missions or services in some matter, and
he took fifty dollar bill, this would not
be extortion. But Il on the otherihand be
intentionally took the fifty dollar bill,
thinking that under the law he was emit
tied 10 it, when in law he was only emit
tied to FIVE dollars, or any less sum than
fifty dollars, this would be mistake of
law, and not o! fact, and would be ex-
tortion. 'Ignorantia juris non exeusat.Y
See in this State THAT mere ignorance OF
law, however innoeently misconstrued,
viii not excuse), Mcclure vs.. State, Z
Humphreys, 1856. That an honest be-
lief. in cases of extortion, that the defen-
dant was entitled to the fees, will not
shield him from criminal prosecution.
See State vs.. Merritt, 5 Sneed, 81. Say
the Court in that case, The principle
that it is extortion to exact fees not
allowed BY law, is indispensable for the
protection of the people, and cannot be
relaxed. Every officer must beware that
he takes no compensation for services
not sanctioned by law" The Court
continues. THE defendant doubtless,
honestly believed he was entitled to the
fee charged. aud we very much regret
the necessity we are under to declare the
law in this case to be against him, by
which he will be subjected TO a penalty,
on that account" The Statute, it will
be seen, omits the words corruptly or
frauduently and simply uses the adverb.
knowingly Thus il will be seen that
the offense need not require cor
rupt intent Assuming then that
the defendant in this case had
no improper motive, but believed
that he was, by virtue Of the
Coanty Court appropriation entitled to
the five dollars per day, can the indict'
ment be sustained2 That the money
taken belonged TO the county can make
no difference. 2 Bishop or. Proc. 326.
referring 10 ii ala. TAG and "a Ala. z54.