The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1866-12-06

Judgment OF Justice Forres-'
ter--ORe Hundred Dollars for.
Fiaintiff i'm Each Case--Jus-
. fice FOrrester's gpiaIOn.aa
/ In the cases of Alexander II. Briscoe
against the judges of election in the
fourth precinct of the nineteenth ward,
which were tried before Justice Forces
terby Il. L. p: Brooke; Esq. for plain
tiff, and H.. Stock ridge, ESQ. for de-
fendants. last week, the justice yester-
day gave judgment in, favor of plaintiff
for 500 damages against each Of the
defendants, and olso delivered the fol
lowing written opinion: 100 D 4ouIq
I These three several actions were .lin-
stituted before me by the plaintiff, AL
exander, M. Briscoe, to recover from each
Of the defendants, Samuel Feast Jr.,
Robert o. Waterworth and Arthur nj =
Clellan, the sum of one hundred dollars
damages fol, injury; sustained by the
plaintiff, in that the defendants, being
judges Of election of the fourth precinct
of the nineteenth ward. did, on tho 9th
November, 1866; willfully and frandu-
lently refuse to receive the vote of the
said plaintiff, he having been duly reg
istered and legally entitled to vote at
said election. d h"& 9sS.'e 9G1o2Id I,
The defendants admit that the plain
tiff was registered voter, on the list
furnished them by the. officer of regis
tration, and that they refused to receive
His vote, but contend that they are jus
tiGed in theIcourse pursued by them on
ground that the plaintiff was reported
to be a disloyal man, and when he pre-
sented himself at the polls, and was put
on his oath, he did not answer the ques-
tions propounded6 to him by them as
judges of election IN a satisfactory man
,ner. Theodefendants, in Justification
Of their conduct, plead Gin the language
of the Court Of Appeals in the case of
Bevard vs.. Hoffman et-, al, 18th Mary
land Reports, 479, &C., } that they were
'public officers acting faithfully and
honestly in the discharge of their duties,
and within the limits Of their constitu-I
tional power;l' that rsthe law cop6ded to
them the, duty of expressing Judgment
in the discharge of their fun ctions," and
that the plaintiff chad fair and honest
exercise Of Judgment in his case, which
is all the law entities him to-, and al:
though the judgment may be erroneous erroneo
and the plaintiff injured, it is, dam,utna
,a5sgue iiJurid, for which no action lies"
These cases, having created d great
deal of interest in the community, and
the question involved in them being of
the highest importance, ! have given to
them the most careful consideration In
my power within the limited time al.
lowed me to mature my Judgment fi9s
~ The principal question raised.in the
adjudication of these, actions, and which
is the gist of the controversy before me,
is whether or not, since the law passed
by the General Assembly for the regis
tration of voters has been carried into
effect, the judges of election have the.
rightto judge the qualification of voters,
and in the exercise of their Judgment
to exclude persons from voting whose
names have been entered on the list of
qualified voters by the officers Of regis
tration eae efti1a,a sHss
adH is apparent. from the language of
the constitution, that the object of the
trainers of that. instrument, in confer
ring power upon the General Assembly
"to provide by law for q uniform regis.