Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-03-27

BLOOMFIELD L. RIDLEY VS.. FREEMAN SHIR-
BROOK.
On the 1st Of August 1866, the plaintiff
IN error filed his petition in the Circuit Court
OF Rutherford for mandamus against the
defendant as register Of voters, appointed
under the provisions of the act of May 3,
1866, passed by the General Assembly of
the State, determining the qualification Of
voters and limiting the elective franchise.
The petitioner AYERS that he is fifty years of
age has been a citizen and resident of that
county for more than twenty years; that he
is free white man that on the 26th of
July, 1865, he was pardoned by the Presi-
dent Of the United States for all offenses
committed against the United States and
State of Tennessee that the plaintiff in er-
ror since the surrender of the Confederate
forces has continued toreside in the county;
that he has had his pardon from the Presi-
dent of the United States that he, the de-
fendant, is the register of voters in said
State Of Tennessee, and has committed no
Offense against either since his pardon, and
has, in all respects, conducted himself as a
loyal citizen, and that ne has been accus-
toned to exercise the right and privilege of
voting at all elections in said county, as
guaranteed to him under the Constitution
of the State of Tennessee, and which right
and privilege he has never forfeited; that
the defendant is exercising the right to reg
lister votes in said county under the prOvis-
ions of the act referred TO, and giving GER
tifcates; that OF the 1st day of August,
1866, not recognizing the validity Of said
franchise act, except so far as it authorizes
a register Of voters and certificate in accor-
dance with the act requiring registration
he applied to said defendant at his Office in
the town of Murfrecsboro', to register his
vote, and give him n certificate as a quail
fed voter of the county. He offered topro-
ducc his pardon, but was informed he would
not register his vote unless he brought him
self within the provision Of the act of May
Sd, 1866. He prayed mdHddmuS Risi issue
against the defendant, that he appear and
show cause why percmptory mandamus
should not issue, and that by judgment OF
the Court the defendant ShirbroolI be com
PEELED TO register him rs a qualified voter
and issue to him a certificate.
A n,and,tpus ajSi was issued by the Hon.
1 Henry Cooper. one Of the Circuit Judges,
/ which was duly executed on the defendant
/ at the same term. The defendant in error
apDcaCCQ ana 0lcQ Ms aUSWCI duLllJS Tx
plaintiff in error had, for many years prior
I 10 the late rebellion resided in the county
OF Rutherford, and had up to that time ox
ercised all the privileges Of citizen OF the
I county, under the provisions Of the law re
/ ferred to; that the plaintiff in error applied
to him to register his vote and give him ;
certificate, but would not comply with tn
provisions of the law of May Sd, 1866, so a
20 entitle him to a certificate and rcgistra
ton.
The cause came on to be heard by tn
Hon. Henry Cooper, who being of the opln
ion that the defendant in error was not
} legal and constitutional officer Of the Stat
Of Tennessee, which he assumed to hold,
being created by body calling itself tn
Q Legislature Of Tennessee, when by law san
! BODY ceased to exist and therefore the of
Ger created by them was no officer. and th
appointment OF the defendant in error VIZ
: null and void, and dismissed the petition
: from which the relator appealed to tn
o court.