
    The State vs. Buxton.
    Indictment. Against a public officer. While it is true that every culpable neglect of duty, enjoined upon a public officer, either by common law or by statute, is an indictable offence, yet the presentment in such case, unless the act of the officer is clearly illegal, must show with sufficient certainty, that it proceeded from corrupt or culpable motives.
    At the July Term, 1852, of the circuit court for Morgan county, the Grand Jury made the following presentment: “That John Buxton, late of said county, Entry Taker, on the first day of September, eighteen hundred and forty-nine, with force and arms, in the county of Morgan aforesaid, and while he, the said John Buxton, was Entry Taker, in and for the said county of Morgan, and bound to keep and preserve tbe books, records and valuable papers of said office, unlawfully did then and there permit and suffer tbe same'to be taken from bis office and out of bis possession and control, arid-said books and records were, then and there, greatly damaged," torn aiid mutilated, to tbe great damage of divers citizens, and against,” &c. Tbe presentment contained another count which charged that the said Buxton, Entry Taker, &c., “ not regarding his duties in office, a misdemeanor did commit, in this, that he, the said Buxton, did, then and there, suffer and permit several and divers pages to. be torn out of said book, containing many valuable entries, to the great damage,” &c'. At the March Term, 1852, Alexander, Judge, presiding, the presentment was quashed, and the Attorney General, in behalf of the State, appealed in error.
    Attorney GeNeeal, for the State.
    WeloKEr, for Buxton.
   McKinney, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is laid down generally in the books, that a public officer is indictable for misbehavior in his office. It is unimportant whether the office was created by common law, or by statute. Every culpable neglect of duty enjoined on such officer, either by common law, or by statute, is an indictable offence: 1 Russ., on Cr., 135; 1 Salk., 380; Roscoe’s cr. Ev., 752.

And where the act is, in itself, clearly illegal, it seems not to be necessary, in order to support an indictment, either to allege, or prove, that it was from corrupt motives. Id.

The presentment in the present case is defective, in failing to show, with sufficient certainty, either that the act was in itself unlawful, or that it proceeded from corrupt or culpable motives. . ...

The judgment of the circuit court quashing the-presentment, was, therefore, proper, 'and is affirmed.  