Any judge or other officer of an election who wilfully or carelessly neglects his plain duty as such officer is liable to criminal prosecution. Thus an inspector of elections who is entrusted with the custody of election documents, by carelessly permitting such documents to be altered by another, commits an offense under a statute which forbids such inspector to permit any alteration of election documents in his custody.20 So a judge of an election who refuses to accept the ballot of a voter simply because he did not consider the naturalization papers of the voter sufficiently regular to entitle him to vote is no excuse for wilfully-refusing to accept the ballot of the voter where his papers did appear to be regular.21 So also an officer who wilfully refuses or neglects to discharge his plain duty, such as his refusal to tender to a challenged voter an oath as required by statute, commits an offense against the election laws.22

16 Com. vs. Rudy, 5 Pa. Dist. R., 270; State vs. Towns, 153 Mo., 91. 17 Eppo vs. Smith, 121 N. C, 157;

See Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec.

455.

18 State vs. Purdy, 36 Wis., 213;

State vs. Dustin, 5 Or., 375.

19 Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 2312; Hall vs. Marshall, 80 Ky., 552. 20 State vs. Brand, 2 Marv. (Del.), 459.

Election officers by putting ballots into a ballot-box not cast by any person entitled to vote, and counting: such spurious ballots, are criminals.23