The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-09-04


The following opinion was delivered
yesterday in the Court Of Appeals by
Judge Maxwell:
George II. LOWS, Plaintiff in error,
Thestale, defendant in error.
Wallace Robinson, PlRlnuff in error,
~.
The Game, Ielendantin error.
Alexander Walker. Plaintiff in error,
The Same, Defendant in error.
And
Joel Mcpherson, Plaintiff in error,
The Same, Defendant In error.
These are four separate causes
brought here on wTlLS Of BupersedeaS
from judgments o; the Circuit Court oil
GTeenbrIer county. As the causes all
Involve the same question and have
been argued together, shall consider
them together.
MCPHERSON was tho Clerk Of the Cir
cult Court, Robinson the Sheriff, and
Lewis the Recorder of said county,
and Walker the Supervisor OF one
Of the townships thereof Proceed,
ings were Instituted against these
parties to remove them from their
respective offices, because their namCa
had been, after they were respectively
elected, struck from the lists Of regis.
tered voters Of said county.
The proceedings were upon rules, all
Of which are the same, except as to the
names OF the parties, and the offices
held by them respectively.
Here Is The one against Mcpherson as
q sample Of the whole:
-.r. RULE.
THE ESTATE OF WRIST VIRGINIA.
IL The Sherry af GreSnLrIer County, Greeting !
We command you that you summon Joel
McPherSon, Clerk o. the Circuit Court Of
Hreenbrier county, II he be found IN your
bRIliwick, 10 appear before the Judge or the
Circuit Court for 1feenbrier county, at the
Court House OF said county, on tomorrow
morning, 10 O'Clock, 70 Bh0W cause, II any he
can, why his office as Clerk should not be de-
clNred 10 be vacated, and he prohibited from
any further exercise thereof, because Elnce
his election 10 said once he has bsen struck
Oh, by the Board Of Registration OF Green.
hEier county, from the list OF eglStered vO-
teIs OF said county. And have then there
this writ
Court, at tue Court HOUSE OF said county,
the 9Th day OF January, 1879, aAd In the Bth
JOEL MCPHERsoN.
The parties respectively appeared
and moved TO Quash the rules against
them, but the Court refused to Quash
them or any Of lhem, by which the
question IL raised here for considera-
alton, whether or not the matters charg.
ed In the rules, II true, IL sufficient
cause for removal from office.
The 4.h Section OF the Sd Article OF
the Constitution, provides that, mo
persons except citizens entitled to vote,
shall be elected or appointed 10 any
State, County or Municipal office" II
is claimed that under the act passed
February Is. 1867, entitled, IAN Act
providing for the Registration of the
qualified voters OF this State" AS
amended by the act passed March 1,
lS6S, II the name Of any voter be struck
from the list OF registered voters
he thereby fOrielts and vAcates
any Office to which he may
have been before that time elected, al
though at the time he was elected he
may have been duly qualified and
registered voter.
The 22d section Of the act for The reg
lsiralion Of voters provides that "rhe
Board of Registration OF each county
shall have the sole Jurisdiction to try
and determine the tight Of any person
TO vote therein under the Constitution
and laws oflhls Slate, and their decis-
lon shall be final, except In cases OF
contested elections before either house
OF the Legislature"
The object and purpose OF the Legls-
lature was 10 determine the right Of
persons to vote at any particular elec.
ton, and Isplainly manifested through.
out the whole act. and the act makes
the decision OF the Board OF Registra.
ton conclusive Of that question. But
there ls no provision in the act dsclar.
ing that II The name oi au office
holder shall bO struck from the
list Unregistered voters he shall for that
reason be removed from his office,
when he was before that time duly
elected and inducted into Office.
The motion to quash each and every
one Of the rules should therefore have
been sustained.
The judguentln each case will have
to be reversed aud the rules quashed.