“Misbehaviour in office may arise from failure to perform a statutory duty, or from failure to perform a common law duty. In either case the indictment must charge more than negligence. . . . [T]he wil[l]ful failure to perform a ministerial duty comes within the common law definition of misdemeanor in public office, and it is not necessary to aver or prove that the officer acted with a corrupt, fraudulent or dishonest intent. But where the nature of the duty is such as to permit the exercise of discretion, there must be present the additional element of an evil or corrupt design to warrant conviction.”
How later courts described this case
- “Misbehaviour in office may arise from failure to perform a statutory duty, or from failure to perform a common law duty. In either case the indictment must charge more than negligence. . . . [T]he wil[l]ful failure to perform a ministerial duty comes within the common law definition of misdemeanor in public office, and it is not necessary to aver or prove that the officer acted with a corrupt, fraudulent or dishonest intent. But where the nature of the duty is such as to permit the exercise of discretion, there must be present the additional element of an evil or corrupt design to warrant conviction.”
- indictment for misbehavior in office must be sufficiently specific in order to viably present charges against the accused of misbehavior in office
- Philadelphia official was improperly indicted for misbehavior in office where the duties he allegedly breached were discretionary in nature and the Commonwealth failed to charge fraud, dishonesty or corruption
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Keller, P. J., Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.,
dissent from that portion of the decision of the majority of this court which affirms the action of the court below in quashing counts one and three of the indictment, being of opinion that the averments therein, that the defendant “did wilfully misbehave himself in office,” in that “he did wilfully omit, neglect and refuse to cause the laws of the Commonwealth” against gambling to be enforced, sufficiently charged the commission of a common law offense.