Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1846-02-26

MA.
This was an action the case, brought in the court
below, by William Fogg the defendant IN error,
AGAINST the plaintiffs in error, Hiram Hobbs, IN
spector, and Levi Baldwin, John Miller, and
Uriah A. Grtner, Judges, of the general election,
held in the county of Luzerne, on the 18th OF Oc-
tober 1885.
The plaintiff below was a colored man, either a
negro or mulatto and, it would seem, brought TINS
action. for the purpose of establishing right, which
he claimed to have of voting at the general cleo
ton held in the county where he resided, Tor gov
ernor and other officers citizen and freeman OF
the State according to the provision IN this behalf,
contained in the constitution and laws.
The declaration set forth the election OF Hlram
Hobbs by the electors of the township Of Greenfield,
in the county Of Luzene, on the Cd day OF October
1885 as an Inspector for the then ensuing general
election. about to be held on the 18th of tie same
month; his acceptance of the office; also the due
appointment of the other plaintiffs IN error as Jud
es of the said general election their acceptance OF
the office; and that they all, accordingly, acted IN
and exercised their respective offices, at and during
the said general election; when and where the de-
PENDANT in error being of the treemcn, and clt-
zens of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
Having resided within the said commonwealth Tor
two wears next before said election, in the township
of Greenfield; and being also above the age OF
twenty-one years, and having paid county tax,
assessed at least SIX OntnS before tle su elcCIo'
all which being made known to the plaintiffs IN err
ror he offered to vote, but they contriving, and
fraudulently, and maliciously intending to lnJnre
and damnify him, the plaintiff in error, IN this be-
half absolutely refused to receive his vote, and thus
prevented BIN from doing SO.
On the trial of the cause, the facts stated by the
plaintiff below in his declaration, with the eXceP-
ton that his vote was fraudulently or mahcously
refused and with the addition, that the palntli
was a negro or mulatto, were admitted IL was
distinctly admitted by the plaintiff below, that there
was no express malice the part of the defendants
below in refusing to receive his Vote and that he
was free negro or mulatto.
There being no controversy between the parties
as to the facts of the case the present judge Scott
charged the jury as follows:
tThis suit is brought for the purpose OF ascertain
ING the political rights the man of color in Penn
sylyania The defendants insist, lst that even sup
posing the plaintiff entitled to recover IN any
form of action, he cannot in an action on the case
That the act of assembly gives specific remedy
which must be pursued. Upon this point, the court
charge the jury, that this is not proceeding to re-
cover the penalty imposed by any act OF assembly
but to recover damages for personal wrong, II
being deprived of the right of suffrage by the deten
dants who were officers of the election, they wei
, knowing that he was legal voter. Such actor
may be sustained, notwithstanding the penal sane
ton of the laws and the specific modes prescribed
{, for enforcing them. Upon this point, the court IN
struct the Jury that the declaration sets forth every
fact necessary under the act OF assembly, to qualify
the plaintiff to exercise the rights OF voter, ant
that the defendants well knowing the premises re
iected his VOTE 1t is, therefore, unnecessary to-