Case ID: la_128/html/0433-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LAND, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(54 South. 932.)
    No. 18,740.
    STATE ex rel. HODGES v. JOYCE, Registrar of Voters, et al.
    (April 10, 1911.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    Elections (§ 73*) — Qualifications oe Voters — Residence.
    An actual bona fide residence for the purpose of registration is not lost by temporary absence of the voter while employed in work elsewhere.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. §§ 69, 70; Dec. Dig. § 73.*]
    Appeal from Tenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Concordia ; John S. Boatner, Judge.
    Proceeding by rule by the State, on the relation of A. J. Hodges, against John J. Joyce, Registrar of Voters, and another. Judgment for defendants, and relator appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Calhoun & Calhoun, for appellant. John S. Boatner, Jr., for appellee Cannon.
   LAND, J.

This is a proceeding by rule to have erased from the registration roll of the Ferriday precinct the name of the defendant John J. Cannon, on the ground of the want of proper qualification as to residence.

There was judgment for the defendant, and the relator has appealed. John J. Cannon is a young man who attained his majority on February 20,1911. He has been living in Ferriday several years, but on December 20, 1911, he went to Mississippi to work under a section foreman, who was supervising the repair of railroad tracks. Defendant’s abode in Mississippi has been a box car, stationary only for a day or two.

While in Ferriday, the defendant lived with an elder brother, who was ear inspector. They occupied a stationary box car, which had been partitioned off so as to serve the purposes of a dwelling. The defendant’s father has lived in the same box car for six months or more. While this kind of nn abode is rather unusual, it has served all the purposes of a dwelling, and the contention has been narrowed down to the question whether the defendant, by going to Mississippi has abandoned his residence in Ferriday; and the solution of the question depends on the answer to the inquiry whether the absence of the defendant is temporary ■or permanent in its nature. Defendant frankly testified that be expected to remain in Mississippi as long as be could hold his present job, but would return to his home at Ferriday if he lost his job, or got sick, or could obtain a better job in Louisiana. Defendant left bis trunk and part of bis clothing in Ferriday, which be calls “home.” He has no other abode in this state.

The trial judge found that the defendant had not changed, nor intended to change, his residence, and we cannot say that his finding is manifestly erroneous on the face of the record.

Judgment affirmed.