The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1882-07-15
THE SAME DECISION IN ONO.

ilif. SNME Dil ISlON IN OHIO.
Also the case reported in the Court cf
Common Pleas of Belmont County. State
of Ohio-Cunningham ilazlett W. Jacob
liGoeer et al, The plaintiff was dis
bursting officer in the Office of the .tudit,l
Of the Post Office Department. and
claimed residence at Alorristown. Ohio.
where hD ioAitlei prior TO removing to
Washington. lie offered his ballot at
the October election of 1858 and it was
refused on the ground of non residence.
Suit was instituted against the Judges of
election for damages. In charging the
jury the Court used the following Ian.
guage:
l;!.ii.tiir could hot lose his residence
in this county by the mere fact of re-
moving to Washington, marrying a wife.
and living and dwelling there with his
family. il the removal was for temporary
purposes, and it was not the intention to
relinquish the former home aud acquire
a new one. The residence Of Il person in
ita legal sense rs the place where he has
his true, and permanent home, and to
which. whenever he is absent, he has the
intention of returning. 1t is not the
mere fact of inhabitaGce in place which
makes it the residence. but is the fact
coupled the inteplion Of remaining
there
Verdict WA rendered fox the plaintiff
\ IIKE CONSTRUCTION IN MICHIGAN,
In 1870, also, Edward Hodges, then a
clerk in the Interior Department, was re-
fused to register at his home in Mich-
gan. lie brought an action tor damages
and recovered Il verdict. Judge Holt
presiding. In the case Of Jones vs.. tt E
EQmmQnw tn of Pennsy lvania & Jone>
pa. itepoTtsa, Chief Justice Gibson, one
aE the ahlest iurists in the country, pre-
siding, said:
"A distinguished counsel, who has
argued in this case, was not thought TO
have lost his residence by residing with
his family as American Minister near the
Court OF st. Petersburg, and think no
greater consequence has ever been at
tribptcd to the residence Of Federal
officer in the District Of toiumbia.''
IN NO INSTANCE
has an eYaminati0 of the facts and law
bearing Ipon these eases at government
employees reading temporarily i'll the
District of Columbia, brought to light
Federal action adverse to the rights
by the clerks. while numerous
cases similar to the foregoing can be
cited. Attention is also invited to the
doctrine held in the eases reported in |
Wallace, 2Gl; , Michigan (Douglas).
5222: Binney. 81; Mclean. 374: 3
Harrison, New York, 40; aud Cuagyas-
sionai contested cases, lSs4 page g.
After the above, should any Judge of
all ne anita rt,i, 4
OF the law in cases of clerks employed by
the general government, The Following
action of the Judiciary Committee of the
House of Representatives. Forty third
Congress, second session. is submitted:
FORTY THIRD CoNGREss-2D SESSION,
llorsE QI isErknsEsrArivE
Report No. III.
Right of Franchise %. l>1J.
Laid on the table and ordered to be
printed.
Mr.. Finck, from the Committee on
the Judiciary. submitted the following
renor,.
" The Committee on the Judiciary. to
whom was referred the petition of VIM.
b. Brown and tiity-four others, asking
for the passage of a law to protect en-
ployes of the United States in their right
Of FRANCHISE in their several States, not
their temporary ahsence i'll
discharge of their duties, report:
That the committee entertain no
doubt whatever that persons who come
into the District of Columbia foy tenn
porary purposes merbly, for discharge Of
duties of clerkships. or other employ
ment under the government, without any
intention of abandoning their former
place of residence, do not forfeit their
former citizenship. but continue To he
entitled to the full exercise of the right
Of franchise, III the same manner as if
they had not so come into this District; |.
that no legislation is necessary on this |
subject, and ask to be discharged from
The further consideration uf said petit /.
tion.'
Mr.. Finck, who made thai report, was
l Democrat.