
    Michael Grace vs. Judah D. Teague.
    Aroostook.
    Opinion June 27, 1888.
    
      Officer. Title in issue. Officer de facto. Damages.
    
    When an officer sets up liis title to an office in justification of liis official act, for which the action is brought, he must prove Ms legal title to the office.
    It is not sufficient that he shows ho was an officer defacto.
    
    Ox EXCEPTIONS AND MOTION.
    This was an action of trespass, for assault and battery, tried on agreed statement of facts, by the presiding justice of the superior court, Aroostook county, with the right to except.
    The defendant, after his commission as trial justice had expired, but not aware of this fact, issued a warrant upon a proper complaint, against the plaintiff who was arrested thereon and brought before the defendant for trial. Plaintiff was found guilty and required to pay a fine and costs.
    The parties agreed that if the defendant was liable in this action, it being conceded he acted in good faith, the damages, not to exceed 836.00 might be assessed by the court. The presiding justice gave judgment for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at $36.00. The defendant excepted and moved for a new trial because the damages were excessive, contending, as appears in the motion, that they should be nominal only.
    No briefs of counsel were received by the reporter.
    
      King and King, for defendant.
    
      P. G. Keegan, for plaintiff.
   Libbey, J.

The law is well settled, that, when an officer sets up his title to an office in defence of an action against him for his acts, he puts in issue his title to the office, and to justify must show that he has the legal title. It is not sufficient for bim to show that he is exercising the duties of the office as an officer de facto. The ruling of the court below on this point is correct. Pooler v. Reed, 73 Maine, 129; Andrews v. Portland, 79 Maine, 488, and cases there cited.

It was agreed by the parties that the damages should not exceed the sum awarded. They are not excessive.

Exceptions and motion overruled.

Peters, C. J., Daneorth, Emery, Foster and Haskell, JJ., concurred.  