
    * Benjamin Runnells versus Robert Fletcher.
    Where an officer, in settling an execution, demanded and received of the debtor a sum beyond the amount of his legal fees, as compensation for trouble he had had at a former time, from the debtor’s resisting the officer, for which he had been indicted and convicted, — it was held not to be extortion, within the statute of 1795, c. 44, § 6.
    This was an action of debt on the statute of 1795, c. 44, § 6, to recover of the defendant, a deputy sheriff of the county of Kennebeclc, the sum of 30 dollars, for wilfully and corruptly demanding and receiving of the plaintiff a greater fee than by the said statute is allowed, for the service of an execution against him, in favor of one Edward Swan, for the sum of 20 dollars 16 cents.
    On trial, before Thatcher, J., it appeared that the sum of 9 dollars 59 cents was received by the defendant, in addition to the amount of the execution — which exceeded the legal fees thereon by the sum of 8 dollars 11 cents.
    At the time of the settlement of the said execution, the defendant had also another execution against the plaintiff, in favor of J. Getchell; and his fees on both were calculated to be 3 dollars 59 cents. But he demanded another sum of 6 dollars, for extra trouble he had suffered in relation to the first-mentioned execution. The plaintiff objected to this demand, as too much ; but on Fletcher’s refusing to settle upon other terms, the plaintiff paid him a part in money, and gave his note for the balance — which note had been paid before the commencement of the present action.
    The trouble for which the defendant claimed indemnity, was what he had suffered by jhe resistance of Runnells, in a former attempt to serve the execution ; and for which he had been indicted and convicted.
    A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, under instructions from the judge, that if the jury were satisfied that the defendant made use of the execution, in any manner, to create an apprehension and fear in the mind of Runnells that, if he did not pay the said sum, he would be committed to jail, it was extortion, and the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict.
    
      Williams for the plaintiff.
    
      Warren for the defendant.
   Curia.

To subject an officer to the penalty prescribed by the statute, it must be proved that the sum, alleged to * have been extorted, was demanded as a fee for some official duty. He must have wilfully and corruptly demanded and received other or greater fees than the law allows.

By the facts reported in this case, if any offence has been committed, it is not against the statute on which the action is brought, but must be extortion at common law. The excess demanded was not as and for fees of service, but as a compensation for labor and trouble attending a supposed injury which happened before. The action cannot, therefore, be maintained upon these facts.

New trial granted. 
      
      
         Commonwealth vs. Bayley, 7 Pick. 279.
     
      
      
         Dunlop vs. Curtis, 10 Mass. Rep. 210. — Shattuck vs. Wood, 1 Pick. 171. — Commonwealth vs. Shed, 1 Mass. Rep. 227.
     