The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1865-08-05

eminent may well do 80, and yet not be obnox-
ions 10 the charge of giving conntenance or APP
proval to his hostile conduct. Relations, friends
and acqnaintances may receive them, may well
come their return. provided that welcome arises
from the pleasure of seeing them again safely
and securely at home. But ifsthat welcome IS
given because they approve their rcoellious con-
duct it Is giving counenance to them IN tnat con
duct. Services and kindness rendered them, with
the intent thereby to approve their hostility and
encourage them therein is giving countenance
within the meaning and intent of this section
but it is not SO when rendered in compliance
with promptings of personal regard, humanity
and benevolence or in obedience to tine rules Oh
social life.
AS have before stated, at the time the plain
tiff offered to vote, he was challenged before tne
Judge of the Election for "disloyalty." rms
was notice to the defendant acting as one OF the
Judges. which he could not disregard and if il
appeared from evidence before them, or from
facts at that time with the knowledge OF the de-
PENDANT, that the plaintiff was disqualified under
the terms and provisions of the Constitution, II
was the duty ofthe defendant to- refuse his vote
1t does not appear, from the evidence before me,
that any evidence was offered before the Judges
of Election to show to them that the plaintiff was
not loyal voter, or that hewas in any manner
disqualified but it does appear from the testi.
me as witness, that there were facts within hi:
knowledge, which, in the opinion of the defend
ant, disqualified the plaintiff. The statement o.
this witness was "from my own knowledge, and
what have heard from his neighbors, the plain
tiff was not, in my opinion, q legal and quallliec
voter, and therefore refused his vote" III
further stated in his testimony, that "he had ncv
err entertained any feelings OF malice or unkind
ness toward the plaintiff and in refusing hi
-l,aa alxtf A uard n
discharge of his duty as a Judge OF the Elections
This witness was notinqnired OF 'the facts with
in his knowledge upon which he based BIZ
opinion of the qualifications OF the plaintiff, no.
did he state them in his testimony. In the ab
sence Of all knowledge OF what those facts were
cannot decide that they ddno constitute prop
or basis of his opinion, much less that they woult
sustain an allegation Of corruption and malic
against the express declaration that he had actet
honestly and faithfully. Not a single fact o
circumstance has been offered in evidence TO con
trovert this declarations, or.to excite a doubt a
to its verify. And, in the absence of all cvi
dence, either direct or crcumsantial, to sustain
the allegation Of the plaintiff that the defendant
in refusing lis vote acted corruptly and mali
ciously, he cannot recover. sou .s ~
Lastly, if the plaintiff suffered any damage
did that damage resultfrom, or was 1T caused
by the act of, the defendant in refusing to re
ceive his vote 1t is in evidence that before ant
at the time the plaintiff offered his vote, and sub
sequent therto, there were two other persons du
ly qualified and acting as Judges of the Election
1t was competent for them to have received hi
vote and they could have done so, notwithstand
ing the refusal the defendant. They were no
controlled by the defendant, nor did he attemp
to control or influence them. And whilst it wa
not in the power of the defendant to exclude tn
plaintiff. from voting ifthey were willing to re
ceive it, it was in their power to receive it, not
withstanding the refusal ofthe defendant.
1t does not appear therefore, that the plaintiff
has been damnifed by the denial of an impor
tant and valuable legal right-that the damag
resulted from the act of the defendant.
Judgment must be rendered for the defendant