Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1894-03-16
neeIson Of tle Conrl Annals

DFNltNN VI wv &OhAN Appears
The Court Of Appeals on Tuesday handed
down its decision in the Mudd -Cox Regisira-
ton cases The opinion in the Madd case j:
quite lengthy end goes into the Registration
law heretofore exponnd-d by the same court
quite fully.
The opinion says; The question Of Mr..
Mudds residence must be determined by his
removal to Washington city ia point Of f'ct.
and bv the intent with wHich tie removal was
M de There Is usually difficulty in asrer-
tanning a mans intentions There hiss been
some vaqueness and latitude in the methods
bv which the courts have permitted the ques-
lion to he investigated 10 Baptist@ vs.. De
Valimbren II. and J Sc the defendant being
a resident Of San Domingo, fed from the ser
vile instruction on that island and arrived
in New York in 1891, and Afterwards removed
to the city Of Baltimore in 1902 The case was
decided nj JuFe term, 1920, after the deiend'
ant had lived IS years in the city he CUES
ton was whether he had acquired residence
in MARYLAND The court said it WIS adNltted
that she, the defendant has constantly aud
uniormerly declared her intention to return
to her own country whenever Circumstances
will permit her to do so with safety, and tor
that reason has never become a citizen either
Of this State or any other Of the United States
These declarations must be taken as part OF
the rsgesta, and are ey lence Of the intention,
and with the fact, that she has never become
citizen is conclusive. She is stranger
in this country an alien, without liked
home, a sojoUrner wherever she goes. await
ing some favorable event. that may invite her
back to the land from whence she has been
driven
In other cases distinction has been drawn
between a fixed intention aud floating inten-
ton. The Legislature has seen 1T to avoid
embarrassments and uncertainties attending
the investigation Of this question by making
a change in the rule ofevidence in toe cases OF
persons applying for registration as voters
The l4tb section of the act Of 1890 is as follows
so far as this question is concerned After
the passage of the act all persons who shall
vacate and remove from the place, domlclle,
abode, dwelling place, or habitation WITHIN
this State and take up a domiclle, abode,
dwelling place or habitation out Of this State
shall be conclusively presumed to have lost
their residence in this State and shall in con-
sequence thereof become disqualified to vote
unless at or about the time of such removal or
within ten days thereafter they shall 60 IN
person before the Clerk OF the Circuit Court
for the county from which they shall so re-
move, or before the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of Baltimore city, if such removal shall
be from said city and shall make acknowledge
before him an affidavit that notwithstand-
ing, such removal, they DO not intend to
change their legal residence, but have a liked
purpose to return TO this State on or before
months preceding the next succeeding cleo
ton in November" Mudd did not lose the
legal possession of his house in Charles county.
il cannot be said it was vacant possession IN
any sense which implied a dereleetion OF MS
right Of property. He had the right to return
to it when he chose, and no one could occupy
it against his will except in the character OF II
trespasser. But it is certain that he changed
his visible dwelling place aud hahitatlon
when he occupied the house in Washington
city with his family In the the language OF
tile statute which we have quoted, be took up
dwelling place and haoltatiOn out OF the
State. He no longer inhabited the house in
Bryantown, but he vacated it as dwelling
place and removed from it These were the
palpable and unequivocd facts connected
with the departure from Maryland. Now
they could not have been explained by show
ing the intent residing in bis owA mind when
they took place The statute allowed him to
show by his own affidavit that ha did not IN
tend to change his legal residence, but that he
bad fixed and defnate purpose to r, turn to
the State on or before months preceding the
next succeeding election in November. AS ne
did not make this affidavit, tie statutary re-
suit must follow, that is to say be is conclu-
sively presumed 10 have lost his residence and
s. DISQUALIFIED as voter The presumption
being made conclusive by law, OF course no
evidence can be introduced to contradict IT,
The Circuit Court BY an equally divided court
sustained the action of the registration officer.
Bat it seems to us that they ought to have re-
vised it, and to have ordered hudd's name To-
be stricken from the registration OF voters.
A motion has been made to dismiss the APP
psal, on the ground that the pul OF excep-
lions was not signed unuhQfL NE lapse OF
the time. II is STAGED lhes xecaPtlon under
the hands and seals OF the judges that it was
signed and asserted on the 3lst day OF Octo-
Der, which was duriHg the term We are
bound oy the record as il is certified to this
Court, and cannot permit it to beeontradlcisd
by affidavit. Ii erroneus in auy respect,
proper mode of making the correction IS pro-
vided, On writ OF dimupition The
court below would have corrected any errors
which are capable of being corrected. The
docke. entries show that the bill OF exceptions
was filed November 26, which was after the
expiration of the term. 1t is necessary ex-
cept under repeal circumstances that the ex-
ceptions should be signed during the term;
but this is no rule of practice that it should
be vacated if not filed within that time -
Reversed and remanded.
The Cox ease is decided upon the same
grounds On the technical point as to
the errors ofthe date in signing the exceptlonss
the court held ii was clearly mistake and
on the authority in FarralI vs.. baltimore 10
Md, we must hold that the date is clerical
misprision and that tie exceptions
were in point of tact signed at the time when
the JUICES had right to sign them.