And wilfully means, to use the language of Mr. Justice Wilson, "_contrary to a man's own conviction_." If it be said that the defendants must be presumed to know the law, that is answered above by the quotations from the opinion of Mr. Justice Wilson. Besides when the statute speaks of "knowledge," aside from the expression "wilfully" it means _knowledge_ as a _fact_--not any _forced presumption of knowledge_ against the clear facts of the case. To this extent and _to this extent only_, does the presumption that defendants were bound to know the law go, viz: They were bound to know that if they _as a fact_ "knowingly and wilfully registered as a voter any person not entitled to be registered" or "knowingly and wilfully received the vote of any person not entitled to vote," in either case they were liable to the penalty; and they could not be allowed to urge in their defense any ignorance that _the law made those facts criminal_. Here is a total absence of any pretence of malice. The defendants acted honestly and according to their best judgment. This is conceded. The most that can be said against them is, that they have erred in judgment. They are not lawyers, nor skilled in the law. They had presented to them a legal question which, to say the least, has puzzled some of the ablest legal minds of the nation. The penalty is the same, on which ever side they err. If they can be convicted of crime, a test must be imposed upon them, which no judge in the land could stand. The defendants should be discharged by this Court. Mr. Crowley then rose to make his argument, when the Court said: THE COURT: I don't think it is necessary for you to spend time in argument, Mr. Crowley. I think upon the last authority cited by the counsel there is no defense in this case. It is entirely clear that where there is a distinct judicial act, the party performing the judicial act is not responsible, civilly or criminally, unless corruption is proven, and in many cases not when corruption is proven. But where the act is not judicial in its character--where there is no discretion--then there is no legal protection. That is the law, as laid down in the authority last quoted, and the authority quoted by Judge Selden in his opinion. It is undoubtedly good law. They hold expressly in that case that the inspectors are administrative officers, and not judicial officers.