Lawrence, J., said: "There is no instance of an action of this sort maintained for an act merely from error of judgment. Perhaps the action might have been maintained, if it had been proved that the defendants' contriving and intending to injure and prejudice the plaintiff, and to deprive him of the benefit of his profits from the fishery, which as a member of this body he was entitled to, according to the custom, had _wilfully and maliciously_ procured him to be disfranchised, in consequence of which he was deprived of such profits. But here there was no evidence of any wilful and malicious intention to deprive the plaintiff of his profits, or that they had disfranchised him with that intent, _which is necessary to maintain this action_. They were indeed guilty of an error in their proceedings to disfranchise him, in not going into any proof of the offence charged against him, but taking his silence as a confession. In the case of _Drewe v. Coulton_, where the action was against the Mayor of Saltash, who was returning officer, for refusing the plaintiff's vote at an election, which was claimed in right of a burgage tenement; Wilson, J., nonsuited the plaintiff _because malice was not proved_; and he observed, that though Lord Holt, in the case of _Ashby v. White_, endeavored to show that the action lay for the obstruction of the right, yet the House of Lords, in the justification of their conduct, supposed to be written by the Chief Justice, puts it upon a different principle, the _wilfulness of the act_. The declaration in that case was copied from the precedent in _Milward v. Sargeant_, which came on in this court on a writ of error, _Hill 26, Geo. 3_, for refusing the plaintiff's vote for the borough of Hastings. There the charge was 'that the defendant contriving and wrongfully intending to injure and prejudice the plaintiff, and to hinder and deprive him of his privilege of voting, did not take or allow his vote.' All which allegations Mr. Justice Wilson, in the case above alluded to, thought were essential to be proved in order to sustain the action." "_Per Curiam._ Rule discharged." The Reporter's head note is: "An action does not lie against individuals for acts erroneously done by them _in a corporate capacity_ from which detriment has happened to the plaintiff. At least, not without proof of malice." The case of _Drewe v. Coulton_ is given at length in a note to _Harman v. Tappenden and others 1 East 563_, and fully sustains what is said of it by Mr. Justice Lawrence.