Lane v. State

• Decision Date: 05 November 1885
• Citation: 47 N.J.L. 362,1 A. 476
• Parties: LANE v. STATE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

1 A. 476

47 N.J.L. 362

LANE

v. STATE.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.

November 5, 1885.

Seymour & Hoffman, for plaintiff in error.

E. T. Paxton, contra.

BEASLEY, C. J. The defendant was indicted for extortion in demanding a certain sum of money as his fee from the prosecutor for issuing his warrant as a justice of the peace in a criminal complaint. At the trial of the case no question was made as to the fact of the prosecutor having paid the fees in question to the justice for issuing the warrant on the complaint, and the judge instructed the jury that, in addition to this, they must be satisfied from the evidence that such fees were demanded by the justice, and that at the time of making such demand he knew that he was making an illegal demand.

The first exception taken to the trial is that the defendant was not an officer embraced in the section of the statute which denounces the penalty for extortion. The section referred to is the twenty-third of the crimes act; but the language of the clause seems clear on this head. Its descriptio personarum is: "No judge, justice, sheriff, constable, jailer, or other officer of this state, ministerial or judicial," etc. If the designation "justice" does not with sufficient distinctness indicate a justice of the peace, as he is a judicial officer of the state, he is certainly embraced under the general description, which is so comprehensive that no official of the state can claim to stand outside of its circumspection. There appears to be no force in this exception.

The next exception is that the judge erred in omitting to hold that the only demand of fees which will render, under the statute, a justice liable to criminal prosecution is a demand made under a threat not to take the complaint unless the fees are first paid. There appears to be no warrant whatever for such a contention. The act says (Revision, 565, par. 139) "that no fees be demanded from parties applying to justices or constables for their services, but shall be paid out of the funds of the county in which such services were rendered, provided the presiding judge of the court of oyer and terminer shall approve of such payment." The prohibition is against demanding fees on the part of the justice. There is neither by expression or by implication anything to show that to such demand there must be annexed the alternative that unless the money is paid the complaint will not be entertained.

The law, as it was expounded to the jury at the trial,...