No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. yi 



duty. It is therefore i'esi)Octfully submitted, tliat in tliese cases the 

 prosecutor, as a public olliciai, has proceeded iu good faitli and solely 

 for the purpose of performing oflicial duty, and is entitled to the 

 protection of the Court. 



Guffey vs. The Commonwealth 2nd Grant 60, Mr, Justice Lewis, 

 delivering the opi«ion of the court iu this case says, pages 68-69: ''The 

 jury have the power to name the prosecutor, but if they name one 

 against whom there is not a particle of evidence, one who was not tl?e 

 prosecutor and who had no notice whatever of the proceedings, the 

 injustice would be so monsirous that it seems impossible to doubt in 

 regard to the power and duty of the court to grant redress. So if 

 the jury should name as prosecutor the justice who issued the war- 

 rant, the constable who executed it, or the district attorney who sen\ 

 up the indictment and prosecuted it, without any other evidence 

 against them, except proof of the performance of their official duties, 

 the demand for a promjjt and efficient remedy would be equally im- 

 perative. No man can suppose for a moment, that the Legislature 

 intended to place it in the power of the jury to impose severe penal- 

 ties upon public officers for the faithful performance of their duties — 

 where the prosecution is not trifling, but one of a grave char- 

 acter, where it is not unfounded but founded upon probable cause 

 existing at the time it was commenced — and where there is no evi- 

 dence of malice in the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to set 

 aside the verdict against the prosecutor for the costs. In short, this 

 is the duty of the court in all cases where there is nothing in the tes- 

 timony to show that the prosecutor behaved improperly." 



This decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stands un- 

 reversed and unchallenged. It has been frequently followed by the 

 lower courts. 



Commonwealth vs. Beam 1st County Court Keports 33. 



In this case the court of quarter sessions in Lancaster county set 

 aside the verdict of a jury imposing costs upon a constable, who was 

 the prosecutor. On page 35, Judge Wickes, delivering the opinion of 

 the court says "it must be borne in mind that these are not cases in 

 which the officers returned within their knowledge, places kept in 

 violation of the law. In that event they would be the real prosecu- 

 tors, and for their honest mistakes it would be manifestly proper the 

 county should pay, because the policy of the law would not allow an 

 officer to be thus embarrassed in the discharge of his official duties." 



Commonwealth vs. Grimm 1st County Court Reports 40. 



In this case, the quarter sessions of Northampton county relieved 

 the prosecutor upon whom costs had been placed by the grand jury, 



