GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 131 
to perform the act he may be punished. But where 
there is discretion, the officer may do anything 
within that diseretion.! 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 arbitrary act is authorized in 
American law.2, When an officer is vested with 
discretionary authority he is personally liable for 
an abuse of that authority.2 ‘‘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 PusLic Heat, 270, 271. 4Kirk v. Wyman, 83 8. C. 
_2 PuBLic HEALTH, 273. 372, 65 S. E. 387. 
8 State v. Yopp, 97 N. C. 477, 5 Miller v. Horton, 152 Mass, 
28. E. 689, 540, 
