The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-01-29


ena is not conclusive, but IS only
circumstance going to show the place OF
residence. His act was only such a thing
as most any citizen would have done. Mr..
FurbIs said he had nothing to say as to
the legality of the act, but he conten led
that Mr.. Boarlman's residence IN Butte
took effect on the moment he left Helena
on the g h day of November. Ii can not
be held that there are two 9th days oil
November in one year, and II must ne
held that the residence began with the 9th
of November. Mr.. Forbis read a number
of authorities in support of his views.
One was to the effect that married
woman's residence followed that OF her
husband. though the residence OF his fam
lily is generally regarded as a presumption
that IL was also his home.
Judge De Wolfe called Mr.. Forbs' at
tention to the law governing elections,
which provides that man must have
been a resident of the county for at least
30 days next preceding the election. and
that a violatIonI IF the law by illegal voting
is punishable by Imprisonment from one
to five wears.
Mr.. Forbis referred to an authority to
the effect that the vote cast by Mr.. Board
man in Helena should have been thrown
out in the count as having been an illegal
vote.
NJ L. Wines, in whose name the pro-
ceedings against Mr.. Boardman we're
brought, closed the arguments and said
| that, agreeing with Mr.. Boar,lman that
| he acquired a residence in Butte on Nov.
| 6, 1892, he still had not been n resident OF
| the city for two years next preceding the
opening Of the polls on Nov. 6, 1894. The
| facts testified to, however, do not bear
out Mr.. Boardman's claim of intention.
| He testified that when he left Helena on
| Nov. 6, on the day upon which no severed
| his connection with the firm in that city,
| he intended to take up his residence in
| ha m a
| tory arrangements. After his visit to
| Butte he returned to Helena, on the same
| day, and not until his return did he sever
| his connection with the Helena firm,
voted in that city on the 9Th and remained
| there until the 18th. For the purpose OF
prevailing in this case, Mr.. Boardman
| now says that he committed an unlawful
| act when he cast his vote in the county OF
| Lewis and Clarke. Mr.. Wines said that
| there could be but one conclusion from
| the facts presented and that was that he
| formed his intention OF removing to butte
| after he closed up his affairs in Helena,
| and that was on Nov. 10, nine or ten days
| too late to give his residence in Silver
Bow county required by law.
In deciding the matter, Judge McHat-
| ton said: The question Is one TO be de-
termined strictly upon the law. The facts
as shown by the evidence are that MIR.
| boardman left Helena on the 9th OF No
vember for Butte to determine whether
or not he would enter the employ OF
| Wharton & Ferris. He had n consulta-
ton with Mr.. Wharton that date, the re-
suit of which was that he entered the
employ of the firm and the books were
| turned over to him. This establishes the
fact of his presence in Butte and the en-
| tering into a contract with Mr.. Wharton.
| He then went back to Helena and did not
return TO Butte again until the 9Th or 9th.
| Tue facts further show that on the S,h he
| voted in Helena and that he was in that
city off and:on until Nov.15. From the facts
| shown the court must gather his inten-
ton and determine if by the point,
| act and intention he did actually
take up his residence in Butte at the time
he claims in good faith. The court can
| not do better, and especially do more JUS
tlce to the defendant, than by reading
| these facts to tie that II was not his actual,
present and fixed intention to become a
resident of Silver Bow county on the 9th
day of November. On the contrary, his
intention at that time was not to acquire
a bona fide residence, but that he would
do SO at some future time. The court can
put no other construction upon the facts,
Tor it candot say that Mr.. Boardman.
with "A full knowledge that he had surren
dered his residence IN Lewis and Clarke
county on the 9th of November, went
TO the polls in that county on the Sth
and committed criminal offense
10y voting on that date. The only reason
able presumption from the evidence Is
that he had retained his residence in that
county and knew that he had right to
vote then. The judgment of the court
therefore is that the prayer of the relator
be granted, that w. II. Winters is enti-
tied to hold the office of county auditor,
and that the defendant is not entitled TO
the office"
At the conclusion of the decision, Mr.,
Boardman handed the keys of his office
TO Mr.. Winters, and the latter at once
went into possession of the office. which
has been held by both since the 9TH oil