Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1882-04-13

OF but fifty nine days. And 80 it is in
regard TO statutes Whea "A statute re.
quires "months notice." u notice OF
thirty days given during a month which
contains but thirty days Is compliance
with the law. People VS.. UlrIeh I'd
Abb n. Y. Pr. 2S. But il would not be
sufficient If given during Il month which
con tains thrty.one days.
The English courts have established
a rule upon this subject which is simple,
uniform and easily understood. 1t is
this. ain calculating a calendar month,
If the computation commences during
the course of month, the right method
is to proceed from given day in one
month to the day with corresponding
number in the ensuing month, Freeman
vs.. Reed 10Th Jurist, n. $. li9-Sth.
Law Times n. 5. 45S, and the same is
the rule in this State, Commonwealth
VS.. Maxwell, 3 Casey, 4II.
In constituting constitution the words
used are not to be stretched beyond
their fair sense, but within that range
The rule of Interpretation must be taken
which best follows out the apparent in.
tention. d. Warris on Stat. 6j9.
nat lllttutlOtl - W bt ktNHfiNb tt'hl
the words used and the purposes in
tended to be accomplished. In fixing
The time of residence required 10y
months instead of by days, the trainers
Vt the constitution maniiestly intended
that the words should be understood IN
respect to that matter, AS they are un'
derstood in respect to contracts and all
other matters, and as they are held by
the courts to mean. As Il part of the
history connected with the changes in.
troduced by the constitutional conven.
ton of 1873, from number OF days
residence TO that of residence of months,
quote from the debates all that relates
TO the subject.
Mr.. McCallister, chairman OF the com.
mittee on suffrage. reported the article
above quoted requiring two months resi-
dence. Mr.. Collins moved TO strike out
two months and insert sixty days, say
ing there is no telling what is meant by
two months but put it sixty days, and
every man can understsnd IL.
Mr.. Buckalew replied, that the com.
mittee on suffrage on all occasions of
computing time have used the word
month or months" and for the reason
that the length of time or number of
days IN months vary, and will be simpler
and more convenient TO election officers
to compute time from the same day ia
any month 70 the same dsv in succeed.
ing months, without stopping to calcu.
late how many days 1t will take for the
same space Of time. We have To carry
these computations over different pc.
riods of the year, and we have uniform.
ly used the term months ~ more simple
and convenient for election boards and
for the people
The amendment was rejected. Let
Debates OF Convention COS.
1t is argued by counsel Tor respondent
that by the registration act OF 1874, 1t
is implied that residence Of sIxty.o one
days Is sufficient to entJtic one Ia vote.
No doubt that Is so at the general elec.
ton, because the sIxly.tirst day pre-.
cedlng the election in November ia fro
months back from that day. The dty IN
September TO which the sixty one days
reaches back, will bc OF the respond.
ing number OF tn. day OF election. But
a similar correspondence Of dates can
not occur counting back sixty one days
from any day in February. IL Is not
two months from the lGlh day OF Dsccm
Der TO the 18th day OF February. con.
clude, therefore. that the votes cast by
solomon Confer aud John 4. Confer and
counted for the respondent, ought to be
deducted from the number oi votes re-
turned for him, thus reducing his count
to O. votes.
IL il objected against the vote Of
Michael Lamey counted for the con.
testant, that he was not qualified voter.
lie was duty registered and resided in
the district in the years 1875 2 and 80,
and was assessed each year hut did not
pay his tax. IL i now contendcd that
he may have paid within two years
some old unpaid tax of former years.
II is possible that this may have been
30, but when it l. shown that one offer.
ing to vote has paid no tax assessed in
the three preceding years the burden
OF proof Is throNn upon him to show
aiiirmatvely, that he had paid tax.
The presumption Is that he had not.
The vote of Michael Llmey must be
deducted from the count returned in
favor Of the contestant.
David Miller cast ballot No. 100,
which contained the name of the can.
didates for the several municipal officers
of the borough. He was duly regis.
tered and qualified voter. Ills ballot
was received by the officers Of the elec.
ton, and counted for sill the officers
except Justice Of the Peace. The vote
for that Office was rejected aud not
counted, because no christian name nor
any initials were preixed to the sur name
Of the person voted for. The facts in
respect to that ticket, "a clearly shown
by the evidence are, that when presen.
ted to Mr. Miller the ticket contained
the words "For Justice OF the Peace
Immediately under which we're printed
or written the name "F. 2. Musser,"
when the ticket was received from Nil.
ler by the board, the name OF F. 2.
Musser had been erased and "Reif-
snyder" written Immediately below.
When the ticket was offered TO Mr..
Miller he stated that he wanted to vote