GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 131 



to perform the act lie may be punished. But where 

 there is discretion, the officer may do anything 

 within that discretion.^ The fact that an officer 

 is given discretion in the performance of his duties 

 does not imply that he can do as he pleases. It is 

 essential that the act be the outcome of personal 

 investigation and consideration, and it must be 

 based upon reason. If the act be not the outcome 

 of such examination and consideration, or if it 

 be the expression of individual will, not clearly 

 dependent upon reason, it will be considered as 

 arbitrary. No arbitraiy act is authorized in 

 American law.^ When an officer is vested with 

 discretionary authority he is personally liable for 

 an abuse of that authority.^ "It follows that 

 boards of health may not deprive any person of 

 his liberty, unless the deprivation is made to 

 appear, by due inquiry, to be reasonably neces- 

 sary to the public health. ' ' * The case of Kirk v. 

 Wyman, just cited, was one in which it was held 

 that the board of health did not have authority 

 to establish such a quarantine as was attempted 

 in a case of anesthetic leprosy, as the disease was 

 very slightly contagious. A board of health 

 ordered the destruction of a glandered horse, but 

 they had to respond in personal damages because 

 the court decided that the evidence presented 

 failed to show that the horse was really suffering 

 with glanders.^ In a similar manner a health 

 officer was held personally liable for the destruc- 



1 Public Health, 270, 271. * Kirk v. Wyman, 83 S. C. 



2 Public Health, 273. 372, 65 S. E. 387. 



3 State V. Yopp, 97 N. C. 477, 5 Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass. 

 2 S. E. 689. 540. 



