In Board of Chosen Freeholders the Court found that: “Defendant was acting as a judicial officer and was bound to an even higher standard of ethical conduct than other public officials. He had a duty to enforce court orders. By altering them he failed to discharge that duty. His actions did not benefit the public and thus were not done for a public purpose. See Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Conda 396 A.2d 613 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1978)
The final factor of the standard is that the acts be done for a public purpose. No benefit accrued to the public from defendant’s contumacious conduct. On the contrary, it is to the public benefit to have the integrity of court orders upheld. Government’s paramount function is the enforcement of the laws and protection of the public interests. It should not be required to protect those who have been charged with the violation of those laws or with conduct prejudicial to those interests. See City of Del Rio v. Lowe, 111 S.W.2d 1208 (Tex.Civ.App. 1937), rev’d on other grounds, 132 Tex. 111, 122 S.W.2d 191 (Sup.Ct. 1938).
Leave a Comments