Weekly American. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1858-1858, 1858-06-05

and Thursday and 9th instant 1t is
the case Of William s. Mullen ps. B. s. Kinsey,
and Thomas ii. Barron, the two American Com
missioners Of Election in the first precinct Of
the Seventh Ward, last June.
The plaintiff, in his declaration, alleged that
on the day of election last year, he was quail
flied voter of the Seventh Ward, and offered to
vote at the first precinct, and his vote was re-
fused by the two Commissioners on the ground
that he was peJured man, and consequently
was not entitled to vote, whereupon the defend.
ants joined issue.
Charles Lee Jones, Esq, appeared for the
plaintiff, and Joseph H. Bradley, ESQ., for the
defendants
The defendants avered that Mullen presented
himself and offered to VOTE and his vote was
challenged upon the ground both that he was
not resident of the Ward and Of the precinct:
that some one proposed to swear Mullen as to
his right to vote, and Kinsey said that he could
not be believed upon oath, as he had perjured
himself in making a certain affidavit in relation
toseeing Mr.. Thomas Mitchell ina Know N 9TH
ing Lodge, and his name not appearing upon
the poll list Of that precinct, and offering no
other evidence than his own oath, which they
could not believe, that he was a legal voter,
they were constrained to refuse him.
The plaintiff proved that his name was regis
tered in the second precinct of that Ward, and
that he offered to vote in the first precinct;
and contended that the Commissioners of either
precinct were bound to receive his vote, he
having been returned upon the assessors list
of the previous December as qualified voter
Of the Seventh Ward; that the act of Congress
Of May, 1856, giving the Corporation power to
provide two election precincts in each Ward,
to make all necessary regulations for carrying
the same into effect, did not give the Corpora
ton the power to require residence in the
precinct, as the act of 1848 absolutely fixed
the qualification of voter, only requiring a
residence in the Ward, and that the Corpora
ton was precluded from requiring any addi-
t;onal qualifications @
The defendants contended that even if it be
true that they rejected Mullen's vote, solely
upon the ground that he was perjured man,
that if they really believed that it was dis
qualification, whether he had been convicted
or not, even if they mistook the law, they were
acting within the line of their duty, and that
the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
The plaintiff commended that every man was
bound to know the law, and cited English and
American decisions to sustain his point.
During the progress of the case, Mr. Mitchell
was put upon the stand, by whom the defend
ants proposed to prove that Mullen was guilty Of
false swearing, in order to show that the COM
missioners acted in good faith in refusing to
believe Mullen upon oath, they being cognizant
OF the fact that he had foresworn himself as
alleged.
The plaintiff demurred to the introduction Of
this testimony, and after considerable discus
sion the court decided that it might be intro
duced
The plaintiff by Mr.. CHARLES LEE JONES,
offered the following instruction, which the
Court granted
IL the jury believe from the whole evidence
that the plaintiff was resident of the first
precinct of the Seventh Ward, in the city Of
Washington on the LIST Monday of June, 1857,
and had resided in the said city one year i'm
mediately preceding the said LIST Monday Of
June, and was resident of the said Seventh
Ward and had been returned on the books of
the Corporation during the year ending the
31st of December next preceding the day
aforesaid as subject to a school tax for that
year, and had paid the same, and offered to
vote at the said first precinct Of said ward,
and the defendants, being two of the three
commissioners for the said precinct, refused
to receive and allow his vote, fraudulently and
maliciously alleging as their only reason for
so refusing to receive his vote that he was "a
perjurcd man." and that by reason of such
refusal the said plaintiff was deprived of his
vote, that the said plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover in this action, unless the jury believe
that he had been previously convicted Of per-
jury or some other infamous crime.
The defence offered the following two in
structions, also granted by the Court:
If from the whole evidence aforesaid the
jury shall find that the defendants, acting on
their deliberate judgment and in good faith be.
lieving that the plaintiff was not entitled to
vote at the time and place stated in his declar.
alton, rejected the same, then the plaintiff is
not entitled TO recover in this action, although
the jury may further believe that the plaintiff
was in fact then and there entitled to vote
And, further, il from the whole evidence the
jury shall find that the name of the plaintiff
was not on the register of persons entitled To
vote at said precinct at said election, and his
ward vote was challenged and rejected by one
of the said defendants on that ground, and NO
proof was offered to show that his name had
been omitted thercfrom by fraud, accident, OF
mistake, then the plaintiff is not entitled to re-
cover in this action.
The jury returned verdict for the defend,
ants s.
THE GREEN MOSS.
A I,I,, an. =. H.