The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1909-06-17
OF Wilbur Cork, Indicted on
Charge Of Rejecting
Voters Name
FROM VOTERS LIST.
OF Registration for the Re
cent Municipal Election
in the City.

Judge Raymond Maxwell in GRIM
ina court Wednesday granted the
motion to quash the indictment re-
turned recently against Wilbur Cork,
city registration officer, charging him
wit projecting the name OF lawful
voter from the registration books for
the last city election. AN Indictment
against Richard Goodwin on a SINH
lar charge is/in the same class and
the ruling of the court in the Cork
case governs the disposition OF the
other.
Judge Maxwell's opinion is given
in full below:
The defendant was appointed by
the council of the city of Clarksburg
registrar of voters fSr the Third
ward for the city election which was
held April 6. 1909! He is indicted
for wilfully and maliciously rejecting
from registration q qualified voter in
said ward.
q T.
The matter cones on now on mo-
ton to quash the indictment. 1t is
urged in support OF this motion, that
the law makes no provision for the
registration Of voters in munictpal-
fly.
Our Act, providing for the regis
tration of voters, is contained in,
Chapter 10 Of the Acts of the Legls-
latnre of 1908,
This act provides for the appoint
ment Of registrars by the county
court for the registration of voters
for any general biennial election and
for any special election that may be-
come necessary The act does not
make any special provision for the
appointment OF registrars to regis
ter the voters Of a municipality for
municipal detection: The only ref
erenee In the Act to a municipality
is contained in section IL where the
following provision Is Incorporated:
But If the registration OF voters is
made necessary by the calling OF a
special election In district, indie
pendent district or municipality, the
compensation therefor shall he paid
by the board or body calling the
said election out Of the funds at
their disposal" Does this sole ref
erence to city or municipal elections
warrant us IN reading Into the Act
the aHhorltyof akeity council to APP
point registrars who shall he sub
iect to the provisions of the act and
liable to the punishment therein pre-
scribed for misconduct in office? Be-
fore answering this question, refer
ence may we'll be had to established
rules of construction.
This Act. at least in SO far as it
fixes punishment and penalties for
yolatlons Of Its provisions, is a penal
law that .is, It Is q law imposing
punishment for an offense commit
ted against the state.
In sutherland,s Statutory Con-
s'ruction. Vol. n, page 96s, the
tho rule of law applicable hereto is
plainly laid down:
The case must be very strong
one indeed which would justify a
court in departing from the plain
meaning oflthe words, especially In
penal act, In search of an intention
which the words themselves did not
suggest. To determine that case is
within the intention of statute, its
Muguage must authorize us to say
St" It would be dangerous indeed to
carr ythe principle that a case which
Is within the reason and mischief Of
statute is within It's provisions so
lar as to punish a crime not enumer-
aied in tho statute because of equal
atroctty, or kindred ch, lcter, with
hose which are enumerated.
THAT penal statutes are to be
'rietly construed has become a
lnaxim of the5iaw, affirmed and Illus
t'ted by inniimerabie cases. The
1stablished rule Is. says the court in
ES Parte Bailey, that penal law
must be constructed strictly and ac-
Coraing to Its letter. Nothing is to
% Fegarded as included within them
la'l Is not within their letter as well
as The spirit; nothing that is not