Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1916-01-05
INTENTION TO RETURN
IS IMPORTANT POINT
In Determining Where Man Has Right
10 vote-unofffciai Opinion by At
torney General.

Concerning the inquiry of Charles
D. Burnes, the secretary of the state,
Of Attorney General George e. Hin
man, relative to the right of an un-
town in which he formerly resided. but
now boarding in an adjoining town, to
continue to vote in the former town,
Mr.. Human expresses the following
unofficial opinion:
While, of course, this IL not a mat
ter on which can give an official
opinion, but one to be decided by the
officials of the town in which the right
to vote is claimed, inasmuch as the
question frequently arises will give.
unomcially, my views regarding the
rule governing such cases.
Under our constitutional and stat
utory provisions, an elector must have
resided a certain time in the state and
in the town in which he offers to vote.
Residence in this connection denotes
a permanent dwelling place to which
the person, when absent intends to
return and a sojourn in place, how
ever long, without the intention Of
making 1t a permanent home, will not
constitute such residence. The right
to vote in a certain town requires the
concurrence of two things-the act Of
residing coupled with the intention to
do so, for the fact Of residence depends
largely upon the intention OF the per-
son. An absence for months, or even
tends 1t as a mere temporary arrange
ment, to be followed by a resumption
OF his former residence, will not be
an abandonment of his former resi-
dence, or deprive him Of his right to
vote thereat. The test is the presence
or absence Of an intent to return. In
order to work change of residence
there must be, both in fact and inten-
ton, an abandonment Of the former
residence and new domicile acquired
h.
intention to make it a permanent
home.
When it is once found that an alb
sence from a fixed residence was for
temporary object merely, with an
intention not to abandon 1t, but to re-
turn to it when the object of the alb
sence has been accomplished, it can
make no difference whether the alb
sence is for a longer or shorter period,
so long as 1t is for such period as will
not of itself alone he conclusive evil
dence of an absence really intended
to be permanent. This will usually de-
pend ve-y much on a variety of other
circumstances accompanying the abb
sence.
The difficulty in the application of
this rule Is in determining the pre-
else state of the facts. The intention
and the residence can only be shown
| by particular acts Of the party claim
ing residence and no particular acts
| OF such party can be said to contradict
conclcsively. his alleged intention un-
less such acts clearly show that the
alleged intention is false. In every
case the acts Of the party and. the
facts in the case must be considered
on their merits in connection with the
declared intention, but the declared
intention should prevail unless the acts
of the party or the facts in the case
clearly show that the declared inten-
ton cannot be true.
Obviously In the case of an unmar-
ried man. emancipated from parental
control, facts indicating permanency
of residence, such as the maintenance
of family home, are not often avail
able and the question of residence Is
more dependent upon the declared in
tention of the person, which intention
will largely control in the absence OF
facts converting such declaration.
So far as the facts in the specific
case under consideration are stated,
they do not appear to me to be suffi-
Gent to controvert a declared inten-
ton OF the person to retain his resi-
dence in the town in which he has
voted ip the past
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE e. HINMAN,
Attorney General.