Court Opinion

ID: 9810621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:54:31.617268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:06.234649
License: Public Domain

Shepherd, J.
concurring: This case was submitted to the jury entirely upon the ground that the defendant was; properly charged with the offence of extortion. I concur iru the disposition made of the appeal, for the reason that the-indictment does not sufficiently charge such an offence. The-facts set forth savor more of bribery or malfeasance in office-than of extortion. I do not agree, however, that it is necessary to prove a corrupt intent in all cases of extortion. If an officer takes more fees than are due, or before they are-due, by mistake of fact, he is excusable; otherwise, where-he takes them by mistake of law.
Bishop, in his Criminal Law (3d Ed., 2d vol., 385, chap. Extortion), says: “But in these matters, as in others relating to the intent, there is a difference between ignorance of the law and ignorance of fact; though the former does not excuse, the latter, where there is no carelessness, does.”
The authorities are conflicting, but I prefer the law as laid down by this Court in State v. Dickens, 1 Hay., 407: “Every *930officer is bound to know what the law is upon the subject of fees to be taken by himself. He cannot excuse himself for taking more than the legal fee by saying he was misled by the rates published, or by the advice of an attorney. * * * If such or the like excuses were admitted it would hardly ever be possible to convict an officer of extortion — he might always contrive to ground his conduct upon misapprehension or improper advice.” This case has been frequently cited, with entire approbation, by this Court, notably by Peakson, J., in State v. Boyett, 10 Ired., 336 (in which case he quotes the above language), and also by the present Chief Justice in State v. McBrayer, 98 N. C., 619. It has, I think, been ever regarded as the settled law in North Carolina.
The ill reported case of State v. Bright, 2 Law Rep., 634, does not necessarily conflict with this view, as the mistake there may have been one of fact, and the Court may also have been influenced by the peculiar form of the verdict. This obscurely reported case, and the very brief and general opinion, ought not to have the effect of overruling the law as carefully laid down in State v. Dickens, and expressly approved by this Court in the later decisions mentioned.