273 U.S. 510 (1927)
Tumey was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by Mayor Pugh of the Village of North College Hill and charged with unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor within Hamilton County.1 Upon appearing before the mayor, Tumey moved for dismissal on the ground that the mayor was disqualified to try the case.2 The mayor denied the motion, conducted the trial, convicted Tumey, fined him one hundred dollars, and ordered that he remain imprisoned until the fine and costs were paid.3
Tumey carried the case on error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.4 That court reversed the judgment.5 The State obtained review in the Court of Appeals of the first appellate district of Ohio, which reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and affirmed the mayor's judgment.6 The Supreme Court of Ohio refused to require the Court of Appeals to certify its record and subsequently dismissed Tumey's petition in error.7
The Village of North College Hill had a population of 1,104 according to the federal census, while Hamilton County had more than half a million residents.8 Under the Ohio statutes and Village Ordinance No. 125, the mayor received his costs in each case only if the defendant was convicted, and the village received one half of the fines collected from prohibition violations, with part of those funds used to compensate deputy marshals and prosecutors based on percentages of the fines collected.9 From May 11, 1923, to December 31, 1923, Mayor Pugh received $696.35 from liquor cases in addition to his regular salary.10
The duties of the mayor were primarily executive, including serving as chief conservator of the peace and supervising the finances of the village.11 The case came before the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error directed to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio.12
Whether certain statutes of Ohio, in providing for the trial by the mayor of a village of one accused of violating the Prohibition Act of the State, deprive the accused of due process of law and violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution because of the pecuniary and other interest which those statutes give the mayor in the result of the trial?13
It violates the Fourteenth Amendment and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case.14
Yes. The mayor of North College Hill had a direct, personal, pecuniary interest in convicting Tumey because he would receive twelve dollars in costs only upon conviction, and over seven months he collected nearly seven hundred dollars from such cases in addition to his salary.15 This interest arose directly from the operation of the Ohio statutes and Ordinance No. 125.16 Those provisions required payment of the mayor's costs solely from convicted defendants and allocated half the fines to the village for its general uses and to fund enforcement personnel.17 Moreover, as the chief executive responsible for village finances, the mayor had a strong motive to convict and impose fines to augment the village treasury, creating an official interest that compounded the personal pecuniary stake and placed the mayor in inconsistent partisan and judicial roles.18
These circumstances offered a possible temptation to the average judge to forget the burden of proof or fail to hold the balance clear between the state and the accused.19
The Ohio statutes providing for the trial by the mayor of a village of one accused of violating the Prohibition Act deprive the accused of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. This occurs because of the pecuniary and other interest which those statutes give the mayor in the result of the trial.20