Howard v. Skinner
| Decision Date | 13 May 1898 |
| Citation | 40 A. 379,87 Md. 556 |
| Parties | HOWARD v. SKINNER et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city.
Petition by Robert W. Perry, Jr., against Wallace Howard and others to strike the name of Howard from the register of qualified voters. From an order directing his name to be stricken from the list, Howard appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, BRISCOE, BOYD, FOWLER ROBERTS, PAGE, and PEARCE, JJ.
William S. Bryan, Jr., and G. Weems Williams, for appellant. John C Rose and Harry W. Henderson, for appellees.
On the 26th of October, 1897, Robert W. Perry, Jr., of Baltimore, filed a petition under Act 1896, c. 202, in the superior court of Baltimore city, wherein he alleged that the appellant, Wallace Howard, who professes to reside aboard the steamer Westmoreland, of the Weems Steamboat Company, at Pier 2, Light Street wharf, Baltimore, and who is registered as a qualified voter, in the First election precinct of the Fifteenth ward (Third legislative district), was not a qualified voter, entitled to be so registered; and, from an order of the court directing his name to be stricken from the list of registered voters for this precinct and ward, this appeal has been taken.
It appears from the record that, at the trial of the case, the appellant, Howard, who was the only witness examined, testified that he had been employed as clerk of the Weems Steamboat Company for over three years; that the steamer upon which he was employed was engaged in the transportation of passengers and merchandise between the city of Baltimore, the Rappahannock and Patuxent rivers, with its home port in the city of Baltimore; that he was unmarried, and had a room upon the steamer, where he slept; that he had never voted either in Baltimore or elsewhere. He also testified that he came to Baltimore from St. Mary's county, where he would return in the event of losing employment; that he had no room or other place to live except on the boat; that he had lived with his aunt on Preston street, in the Second legislative district of Baltimore, about one or two weeks before he was employed by the steamboat company. There was other evidence tending to establish the qualification of the appellant as a voter; but, as it is conceded that he possessed all the necessary qualifications prescribed by the constitution of the state except that of residence, it need not be more fully stated for the purposes of this case.
It is quite apparent, under the facts of the case, that the appellant never acquired a voting residence in the city of Baltimore, unless his alleged residence upon the steamer, while temporarily lying at her pier at Light Street wharf, in the city of Baltimore, gave him one. The appellant's domicile of origin was St. Mary's county, and this continued until he acquired another elsewhere. By the express terms of section 1 of article 1 of our constitution, a person who shall have acquired a residence in a county or city of the state, entitling him to vote at an election there held, shall be entitled to vote in the election district from which he removed, until he shall have acquired a residence in the part of the county or city to which he has removed. McLane v. Hobbs, 74 Md. 171, 21 A. 708; Shaeffer v. Gilbert, 73 Md. 66, 20 A. 434. And in Turner v. Crosby, 85 Md. 180, 36 A. 760, this court said, in construing article 23 of chapter 202 of the Acts of 1896 (the present registration law of the state), that, in determining whether any person is or is not a resident of any voting precinct, it shall be presumed that, if a person is shown to have acquired a residence in one locality, he retains the same until it is affirmatively shown that he has acquired a residence in another locality.
The next question,...
To continue reading
Request your trial