same day, to take the oath of office of constable for the said manor of H. so being nominated and elected for and to that office as aforesaid; and the jurors, &c. do further present, that the said T. O. afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. aforesaid, was duly summoned by X. Y. then being such constable of the manor of H. aforesaid, to appear before the said Sir A. H. baronet, and C. S. clerk, being such justices as aforesaid, at the said session-house in K. aforesaid, on, &c. aforesaid, by one of the clock in the afternoon of that day, to take the oath of office aforesaid, according to the tenor of the said summons, and that although the said T. O. personally appeared before the said Sir A. H. baronet, and C. S. clerk, on the day and at the place in that behalf aforesaid, according to the summons aforesaid, and was then and there required by the said Sir A. H. baronet, and C. S. clerk, to take the said oath of office of constable of and for the said manor of H. according to the nomination and election aforesaid, yet the said T. O. then and there, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. unlawfully, wilfully, obstinately, and contemptuously did refuse and deny, and still doth refuse and deny, to take the said oath of office, and to be duly sworn in the said office of constable of and for the said manor of H. for the year next ensuing, and to take upon him the said office of constable; contrary to his duty in that behalf, to the great hindrance of justice, and against the peace, &c.

Indictment for refusing to serve the Office of Overseer (i). That on, &c. at, &c. B. C. esquire, and D. E. esquire, then and yet being two of the justices of our said lady the Queen, assigned to keep the peace of our said lady the Queen in the said county of M. and also to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses, and other misdemeanours committed in the same county, (one of them then being of the quorum) and both dwelling near the said parish of A. in the county of M. aforesaid, did under their hands and seals nominate and appoint F. G. late of, &c. then being a substantial householder in the said parish of A. in the county aforesaid, to be overseer of the poor of the said parish for the year then ensuing, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. And that afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. he the said F. G. had due notice of the said nomination and appointment, and was duly and legally served therewith; yet he the said F. G. of the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, yeoman, on the said day of in the year aforesaid, and continually afterwards, until the day of the taking of this inquisition, during all which time he the said F. G. was and continued, and yet is an inhabitant and householder within the same parish, in the county aforesaid, at, &c. unlawfully, obstinately, and contemptuously did, and yet doth, neglect and refuse to take upon himself the execution of the said office of overseer of the poor of the said parish of A. in the said county of M. to which he was so nominated and appointed as aforesaid, or to intermeddle or act therein; against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace,

--

(i) As to what constitutes a householder for the purpose of liability to

&c.

serve this office, see R. v. Poynder, 1 B. & C. 178.

Indictment for not appearing when summoned as a Juror on a Coroner's Inquest (j).

Borough of R. to wit.

That on, &c. at, &c. one A. B. died within the limits of the borough of R. in the county of Berks, of a sudden and violent,

and not natural death, and that the body of the said A. B. then lay dead in the parish of St. G. within the limits of the borough aforesaid, whereof information had been then and there duly given to J. J. B. esquire, who then was the coroner of the borough aforesaid.

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that thereupon the said J. J. B. so being such coroner as aforesaid, to wit, on the said day of in the year aforesaid, in the parish of St. G. within the limits of the borough aforesaid, duly made his certain warrant in writing under his hand and seal, as such coroner as aforesaid, directed to the constables and wardens of the said borough, whereby the said coroner in her majesty's name charged and commanded them, that on sight thereof they should summon and warn twenty-four able and sufficient men of their constablewick personally to appear before him on the said day of at the house known by the sign of the —, in street, in the said borough, then and there to do and execute all such things as should be given them in charge on behalf of our sovereign lady the Queen's Majesty, touching the death of the said A. B., and that they should make a return of those whom they should so summon. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that C. D. of the parish of St. G. within the borough aforesaid,

at

o'clock in the

on the said

day of

in the year aforesaid, and long before, was an inhabitant householder of the parish of St. G. aforesaid, within the borough aforesaid, and a person able and sufficient to do and execute all such things as might and should be given to him in charge, on behalf of our said lady the Queen, touching the death of the said A. B., and that he the said C. D. then and there was duly summoned and warned personally to appear before the said J. J. B. so being such coroner as aforesaid, at the time and place aforesaid, to do and execute all such things as there might be given to him in charge touching the premises aforesaid. Nevertheless the said C. D. wholly neglecting his duty in that behalf, did not nor would personally appear before the said J. J. B. so being such coroner as aforesaid, but so to do, and to do his duty on that behalf, then and there totally did neglect, and wilfully, obstinately, and contemptuously did make default, against the form and effect of the said warrant and summons; in contempt, &c. and against the peace, &c.

day of

in the year

2nd Count. That the said C. D. on the said aforesaid, and long before, was an inhabitant of and in the parish of St. G. aforesaid, within the borough aforesaid, and that he the said C. D. then and there was duly summoned and warned personally to appear before the said J. J. B. so being such coroner as aforesaid, at [the particular time and place stated in the

warrant], to do and execute all such things as then and there might be given to him in charge touching the death of the said A. B. then lying dead in the parish of

(j) MSS. Tyr. R. v. Bunce, A. D. 1834. See stat. 4 Ed. I. c. 2. R. v.

Jones, Stra. 1145; R. v. Lone, id. 820;

2 Inst. 225; Fortescue, c. 25.

St. G. aforesaid, within the borough aforesaid, of a violent death. Nevertheless, the said C. D. wholly neglecting his duty in that behalf, did not nor would personally appear before the said J. J. B. so being such coroner as aforesaid, upon the occasion aforesaid, but so to do, and to do his duty in that behalf, then and there totally did neglect, and wilfully, obstinately, and contemptuously did make default; in contempt, &c. and against the peace, &c.

2. Committing Extortion, Oppression, or Fraud in Office.]—Extortion is the unlawful taking by an officer, by colour of his office, of any money or thing of value, when none is due; or when less is due; or when the money taken is not yet due (k). Thus, if a churchwarden obtain any valuable thing by colour of his office (4); if a coroner refuse to take an inquisition till his fees are paid (m); if an under-sheriff refuse to execute process till he has received his fees, or take a bond for them before execution is sued out; they will be respectively guilty of extortion. At common law this offence was punishable as a high misdemeanour, by fine, imprisonment, and removal from office. The statute of Westminster the First (3 Ed. I. c. 26), which is in affirmance of the common law, declares and enacts that it shall be extortion for any sheriff, or other minister of the king, whose office in any way concerns the execution and administration of justice or the common good of the subject, to take any reward, except what he reeeives of the king; and this statute, in addition to the common law penalties, provides that the party offending shall yield twice as much as he has taken; thereby giving to the party aggrieved an action to recover double the value. But the stated and known fees allowed by the courts of justice to their officers are not affected by this statute, and may be lawfully claimed as of right by the officers (n).

In cases of extortion, all who assist in making or enforcing the unlawful demand are guilty as principals; there being no accessories in offences below felony; and all may be indicted jointly (o). The indictment must state a certain sum as extortionately taken; but it will be supported on proof of any less or greater sum being so taken (p). The sessions have power to try and determine this offence by the express words of their commission (q).

All magistrates guilty of exercising the powers of their office corruptly, to the injury of others, are liable to be indicted or proceeded

(*) Co. Lit. 368.

(1) R. v. Eyres, 1 Sid. 307.

(m) 3 Inst. 149.

(n) 2 Inst. 210.

(0) R. v. Loggen and another, 1 Stra.

75; R. v. Atkinson, 2 Ld. Raym. 1248. (p) R. v. Burdett, 1 Ld. Raym. 149; R. v. Gillam, 6 T. R. 267.

75.

(q) R. v. Loggen and another, 1 Stra.

against by criminal information in the queen's bench; but they are not so liable for mere error; and the difficulty of proving a corrupt motive, even where it exists, generally renders such proceedings ineffectual.

Indictment against a Constable for extorting and obtaining Money under colour of discharging a Bench Warrant.

That A. B. late of, &c. on, &c. then being one of the constables of the said parish, at, &c. did take and arrest one C. D. by colour of a certain warrant called a bench warrant, which he, the said A. B. then and there alleged that he had in his possession; and that the said A. B. afterwards, and while the said C. D. so remained in his custody as aforesaid, on, &c. at, &c. unlawfully, corruptly, deceitfully, and extorsively, and by colour of his said office, did extort, receive, and take of and from the said C. D. the sum of two guineas (r), as and for a fee due to him the said A. B. as such constable as aforesaid, for the obtaining and discharging of the said warrant, as he the said A. B. then and there alleged; whereas in truth and in fact, no fee whatever was then due from the said C. D. to the said A. B. as such constable in that behalf; in breach of the duty of his said office of constable, and against the peace, &c. (s).

Indictment against a Gaoler for Extortion.

That on, &c. A. B. was committed to the common gaol of the county of M. aforesaid, by virtue of a certain warrant of commitment duly made by C. D. esquire, then and yet one of the justices of our said lady the Queen, assigned, &c. under his hand and seal, bearing date, &c. and directed to the keeper of the said gaol, by which said warrant of commitment the said keeper was required to receive into his custody the said A. B., he being charged, &c. [recite the charge in the commitment], and that G. H. keeper of the said gaol, afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. did receive the said A. B. into his custody in the said gaol there situate, for the cause aforesaid, and him the said A. B. from, &c. until, &c. in his custody in the said gaol, by virtue of the said warrant of commitment had, and that the said G. H. late of, &c. being such keeper of the said common gaol of the said county of M. as aforesaid, but the duty of his office in that behalf, and the laws of this realm in no wise regarding, afterwards, to wit, on the said, &c. at, &c. unlawfully and unjustly did take a reward of the said A. B. to do his office, (that is to say) he the said G. H. did then and there, by colour of his said office, unlawfully and unjustly demand, extort, receive, and take of and from the said A. B. the sum of 128. as and for his fee, for pretended ease and favour towards the said A. B. in the said gaol,

(r) An information charging a ferryman with extorting divers sums of money, exceeding the old rates of toll, from divers subjects to the Attorney General unknown, was held bad for accumulating several offences under a general charge, R. v. Roberts, Carth. 226.

(*) See p. 450. If any fee may be

taken, the legal amount must be stated, or the indictment will be bad, Reg. v. Levy, in Q. B. 8 June, 1839; Blake's case, 3 Leon. 268. If the extortion is in levying an execution, the amount of execution must be laid and shown, Reg. v, Levy,

during the time aforesaid, whereas in truth and in fact the said G. H. was not entitled to the said sum of 128. or any sum of money whatsoever from him the said A. B. for doing his said office; against the form of the statute, &c. and against the peace, &c.

And the jurors, &c. that the said G. H. being keeper of the common gaol of the said county of M. as aforesaid, on, &c. at, &c. in the said gaol there situate, did receive one A. B. by virtue of a certain warrant of commitment duly made by the said C. D. esquire, in that behalf, and he the said G. H. the said A. B. from the day and year last aforesaid, until, &c. in his custody in the said gaol there had. And the jurors, &c. that the said G. H. afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. unlawfully and unjustly, by colour of his said office, did demand, extort, receive, and take of and from the said A. B. the sum of 128. as and for his ease and favour towards the said A. B. in the said gaol, during the time aforesaid, whereas in truth and in fact there was no fee or sum of money whatsoever due from the said A. B. to the said G. H. in that behalf; in contempt, &c. and against the peace, &c.

Indictment against a Toll-Collector for extorting Toll from a Person who had compounded (t).

That O. B. late of, &c. labourer, by colour of being collector and receiver of the monies and tolls at a certain turnpike or toll-bar gate, situate in, &c. aforesaid, on, &c. with force and arms, at, &c. aforesaid, unlawfully, extorsively, and deceitfully, and of his own wrong, extorted, exacted, asked, demanded, and received of one A. Z., husbandman, the sum of one shilling and sixpence, for a cart and two horses, that is to say, sixpence for a cart, and sixpence for each of two horses then and there drawing the said cart belonging to him the said A. Z. for permitting the same to pass through the said turnpike or toll-bar gate, under colour and pretence that the said A. Z. had neglected to take out and obtain from him the said O. B. such a ticket or certificate of composition, and exemption from toll, as is permitted by a certain act of parliament passed in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Third, intituled [here insert the title of the act]; whereas in truth and in fact he the said A. Z. had taken and obtained from the said O. B. and was then in possession of, such ticket or certificate of composition and exemption as aforesaid, signed with the name of the said O. B. and dated [here set out the date to show that it was within the terms of the act], as in the said mentioned act is specified; against the peace, &c.

Indictment against a Justice for causing a Person to be taken and

imprisoned in a Matter of which he had no Cognizance (u). That on, &c. at, &c. P. Q. esquire, then being one of the justices of our lady the Queen, assigned, &c. did make his certain warrant in writing under his hand and

(t) Two observations particularly apply to this precedent :

1st. That stat. 3 Ed. I. c. 26, was only in affirmance of the common law, and therefore all public officers, properly so called, whether mentioned in that statute or not, seem to be subject to indictments for extortion; Dalt. c. 41; 1 Russ. C. & M. 144.

2d. That the question of exempt, or not exempt, from toll of a turnpike gate cannot be tried on an indictment of a bar-keeper for extortion, the general right to take not having been denied, nor the ground of exemption notified, R. v. Hamlyn, 4 Campb. 379.

(u) Although the more usual course to attempt obtaining redress against