Case ID: va_29/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "UPSHUR, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Poulson v. The Justices of Accomack.
    November, 1830.
    (Absent Daniel, J.)
    Justice of Peace-Removal from State — Resumption of Office on Return. — A justice of tlie peace of the county of A. leaves this state, with intent to establish his residence in another state; he remains in another state nine months, but does not establish his permanent residence there: and then, he returns to. and resumes his former residence in, the county of A. Held, he has no right to resume the exercise of his office of justice of the peace of A.
    This was a case adjourned to this court from the circuit court of Accomack.
    Upon the motion of Poulson, a rule was made in October 1828, by the circuit court, upon the justices of the county court of Accomack, to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue, to command them to restore Poulson to his rights and privileges as a justice of the county court of Accomack; which rights and privileges were withheld from him. And upon the return made by the justices of the county court, an issue of fact was made up between the parties; upon the trial of which, the jury found the following facts:
    That Poulson left the commonwealth about October 1820, with intent to take up his permanent residence elsewhere; that he remained about nine months in the state of Kentucky, but did not establish any residence of a permanent character there or elsewhere, until his return to Accomack county about July or August 1821, where he has resided ever since.
    Whereupon, the circuit court adjourned the following question to this court: Whether upon the case found by the jury a mandamus ought to be awarded to the justices of the county court?
    
      
      Justice of Peace. — See generally, monographic note on “Justices of the Peace” appended to Wallace v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 130. The principal case was cited in Bunting v. Willis, 27 Gratt. 161.
    
   UPSHUR, J.,

delivered the resolution of the court, That this case was not distinguishable, in principle, from the case of Chew v. The Justices of Spottsylvania, 2 Virg. Ca. 208, and upon the authority of that case, the court was unanimously of opinion that the mandamus ought not to be awarded.