Evening star., 1915-01-04

tering. so far as the record shows, from
IN November, 1912. Immediately fol
lowing the presidential election, his
family returned to Washington ana
again took apartments at the west.
minister. No place of residence had
been retained by respondent in WASH
ington during his absence. nor nad ne
left any property or belongings here
or paid any taxes. ,o,,
and 1918 at Princeton and seagirt,
N. J., with President-electW Wilson. He
came to Washington to attend the IN
auguration of the President In March.
1918, when he joined his family -, at tine the
,hs date and tessiea shat he
regarded Washington,as his home; h.a ana 2 .
at all times intended to return here as
soon as his engagements IN Snlcaso
permitted: A number of witnesses tes,
titled to respondents hay1ns eApresseu
this intention to them.
Discusses New Questions.
"The matters disposed OF in our former
opinion are again advanced in TINS ap-
neal. They viii not be reconsfdered, but
We will confine ourselves to the new ques-
tions presented. Exception was taken to
the ruling of the court in refusing to ad-
NIT in evidence a transcript OF the testi-
,,onv taken before the committee OF the
Senate while it had under consldefatioh
the confirmation of the President
nonination Of respondent to the office IN
nuastion This evidence was incompetent,
and could have no relevancy to the pres
emf issue, which involves respondents 9
right to hold the Office, and not the motives
which prompted the President and the
Senate In making the appointment. Be
sides 1t is not quite clear in what respect
respondent can claim injury from this
ruling. The transcript offered contains,
so far as it goes, the same testimony
given by respondent in this case. It
merely would have duplicated portion
no purpose except to incumber the record
.It is urged by counsel for respondent
that the court erred In granting relator
the right to open and close IN the SUP
mission Of the evidence and the rignt 10
open and close the argument to the jury
The court properly instructed the jury
that the burden of proof was upon
relator. Mere possession Of the office, ac-
companied by a commission from the
proper appointing power. created pre-
sumption that relator possessed the legal
qualifications to hold the office.
Presumption With Defendant.
"The affirmative was, therefore, cast
upon relator of overcoming this pre-
sumption, which, under our practice,
required him to open and close the evil
dence and the argument 1t Is difhcult.
however, to understand just how re-
spondent could be damaged by having
the burden cast upon relator.
THE form Of the writ would seem to
indicate that the burden is upon re-
spondent to show his lawful possession
of the office. This was the early Eng
lish practice, where the writ was pre-
rogatiye and issued in the name of the
king But that practice mas not oeen
followed in this country. Here the writ
has fallen into disuse. and the proceed
ing is initiated by information in the
nature of a civil proceeding to try the
right to office. In state ex rel. DAN
forth ct al. VS.. Hunton ct al. 2S VT,
594. the court, considering the question
Of practice in quo warranto. said: The
form of the issue, requiring the defend
ants to show cause. would seem to in
dicate, in form, that the defendants
would be required to go forward in the
case. But it seems to US that the form
of the issue in the case does not cor
rectly define the true position of the
parties in regard to the presumption of
right. The defendants are in possess
should be presumed regularly elected
and entitled to hold until the contrary
be shown. The plaintiffs. then. are
bound to make case against them.
and they should go forward IN the
proof and in the argument
an state ex rel. Bernefeld vs.. Kup-
ferle. "A Mo-. 154, the court held an
information in the nature of writ in
quo warranto to be a civil proceeding,
casting the burden upon the relator to
remove the presumption which exists
in favor of the regularity Of Of respond,
ent's appointment and his right to hold
the office. 1t was not error to require
reiator to go forward in the trial.
Hotel Registration.
Respondent objected to the submis-
sion to the jury of evidence relative to
his registering at hotels from Chicago,
and in one or two instances from
Princeton, N ]. The object of regis
terine In hotels is to advise the hotel
management of the present address of
the guest, where, If necessary. he can
! be reached speedily, and it may. or
may not, indicate his domicile or legal