Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1890-10-24
Sitting I'm AppeaI Cases.

ffshtthr - - Ns-f'N-'
Court met here sgain on Wednesday with
Ills Honor Judge Brooke on the bench to hear
appeals in registration cases. A great many
cases have been docke,ed and several have
been heard, most Of those stricken rom the
ats of qualified voters have been restored
ss.j,s.sut .ayeh contest, As it was clear that in
mary cases voters we're stricken from the Lists
/ from a misapprehension Of the law, which,
owing to the multiplicity of counsel they had
to contend with, given by their partisan
| friends, was not to be wondered at. Two
cases Of considerable importance was heard
on Wednesday, the first being that Of N.
Fabey, and the other &. q. Lancaster. In
the FIRST case il was shown that Fahey receive
ed an appointment in the Washington Navy
Yard in June 1889, and Went to work at once
leaving bis family behind. In November he
removed his family also TO Washington, and
remained with them until the passage OF the
new election law, when be Immediately
brought them back to the county to prevent
him from losing his right Of franchise, but be
failed to take the oath as required by law
The court held that the failure TO take the
oath was fatal in the case and sustained the
officer Of registration in striking bis name
from the list Of voters. The case Of Lancaster
developed the fact that the petitioner was at
the time Of the passage Of the new law prop
erty owner in this county, his birth place,
where be had exercised the right Of franchise
since his majority, that he left the State just
after the close Of the war to enter college,
that AFTER bic Graduation he entered the
EoveTnmeH; service, which position he resign.
ed and ever since has been practicing bis pro-
fession in Washington, where be lives with
his family, having married while living there.
Upon the passage Of the present law be took
the required oath before the clerk, and he
commended in lengthy argument that he
took up his abode in Charles county by
visiting it occasionally. The court held that
he failed TO take up his domicile in the mean
ing Of the law. That, should he have remov-
ed his family from Washington to the county
and visited there, instead Of living in that
city with his family and visiting here.
he would have complied with the provisions
Of the act Of assembly, but failing TO remove
his family his affidavit before the clerk was
insufficient. Appeals were noted in each of
toe two last named cases.
On Thursday His Honor Judge Brooke con-
tnued to hear appeals from Registration Off
GERS Thomas A. Jones, whose removal last
winter from the Navy Yard at Washington
caused such furore was relnstated by the
court, he having taken the oath required by
law and removed TO the county shortly after
his discharge. His Honor held that the de-
cison of the court in ordering the renstate
ment of those illegally stricken by the Regis
tration Officers was not affected by appeal,
and that if any officer or the Clerk Of the Court
failed to restore such names, when so ordered,
they would be bed in contempt
This is manfesty just and fair decision,
as many persons are illegally stricken from
the registries, and If this opinion had been
different large numbers could have been de-
rrived of Their right of franchise, which right
the testimony clearly showed they possessed,
by simply noting an appeal For it is adj
mitted that such cases will not be heard until
after The coming election.