majority"> MekrimoN, J.,

(after stating the case). The words which the complaint alleges the defendant spoke of the plaintiff as post master while he held that office, unquestionably'imputed to him dishonest and corrupt acts done in his office, which, in their nature, imply moral turpitude and work social degradation. They charge acts to have been done by the plaintiff, which if done, constitute a gross breach of official faith and duty, and a degrading and infamous offence under the laws of the United States, punishable by fine and imprisonment at hard labor, and which renders the offender, if he be a post master, forever incapable after conviction of holding that office. Such imprisonment is infamous under the laws of the United States, and the disqualification to hold office is certainly a punishment that implies disgrace and infamy. It fixes upon the convicted party a stigma of disgrace and reproach in the eyes of honest and honorable men, that continues for life. It is difficult to conceive of a punishment more galling and degrading in this country, than disqualification to hold office, whether one be an office seeker or not.

Here, generally, all honest men are eligible to office, and to share in the honors and emoluments incidental to it. How *134 great the standing disgrace that one cannot, because of crime that imports corruption in office! United States v. Waddell, 112 U. S., 82; Ex-parte Wilson, 114 U. S., 171; Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S., 348 ; Ex-parte Brown, 121 U. S.; 1 Rev. Stats. U. S.; §§3890, 3891, 3892; McKee v. Wilson, 87 N. C., 300.

That the act done is. a crime under the laws of the United States, need not be alleged in the complaint, because these laws prevail throughout this State, and the Courts take judicial notice of them. It would be otherwise, however, if the charge imputed a'statutory offence under the laws of a State of the Union other .than this State. The Courts do not take such notice of the laws of other States, and hence, in such case, it would be necessary to allege and prove that by the laws of the State named, the acts charged to have been done constituted a crime infamous in its nature and in the nature of the punishment attached to it. Shipp v. McCrow, 3 Murph., 463; Wall v. Hoskins, 5 Ired., 177; Sparrow, v. Maynard, 8 Jones, 195.

The exception as to the admission of evidence objected to is without merit. The plaintiff did not ask the witness what the affidavit contained, nor was it the purpose of the question propounded to him to give evidence of its contents. He was simply asked if he swore that which it contained was true.

There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

• No error. Judgment affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress