case the queen against Wrightson a indictment will not lie for say of a  justice of the peace he be a fool a ass and a coxcomb for make such a warrant  and understand no more how to make a warrant than a stickhead S c salk S c  holt the defendant be indict for say of sir Roland win who be a justice of  peace these word sir Roland win be a fool a ass and a coxcomb for make such a  warrant and understand no more how to make a warrant than a stickhead the  defendant be find guilty on the trial move in arrest of judgement Mr Salkeld  for the defendant argue that these word be not indictable for that they only  concern the person of the magistrate and not the government indeed if one  reflect on a justice of the peace either for his office or his honesty it be a  question whether a indictment lie but this censure only this particular Act  beside it do not appear what the warrant be Mr Eyre for the queen argue that  the indictment be maintainable for though this do not reflect immediate on the  government yet the government be oblige to maintain the instrument of its  authority beside the word censure he in modern report er p the execution of  his office videlicet as a magistrate and he cite king v hanson a Hutton S c  cro car a and Reg v Derby b Mod S c comb S c Carth S c salk b this be not like  reflect on a officer in a corporation for one be by commission immediate from  the crown and the other by election the one reflect on the public government  and the other on the corporation only modern report this be argue several time  the court give their resolution this term that the indictment do not lie holt  chief justice say be know no case like this but the queen v Derby c Mod and  see king v Langley ld ray where a indictment for say of a justice of the peace  you be a rogue and a rascal be quash on demurrer and gold justice in deliver  the judgement of the court say that the word in Reg v Derby he be a  buffleheaded fellow do not understand the law and have not do justice be hold  not indictable say vide salk comb contra but in king v pocock Trinity term Geo  the case of Reg v Derby be deny to be law see also prowse v Wilcox Mod and  king v penny ld ray Reg v shaftoe post c indeed word speak in disparagement of  a justice part be a breach of good behaviour but not indictable beside the  indictment do not set forth that this be a legal warrant it ought to appear to  the court what sort of a warrant it be for if it be a foolish warrant or of a  matter whereof he have no cognizance it be lawful to say so the word perhaps  may be true and justice of peace be not beyond censure Powell justice the same  and say if the word be not indictable they be much less actionable powys and  gold justice agree and in this case be cite by holt chief justice keb roll Abr  Inst and the case of Langley for abuse the mayor of Salisbury