Langhammer v. Munter

• Decision Date: 28 February 1895
• Citation: 31 A. 300,80 Md. 518
• Parties: LANGHAMMER ET AL. v. MUNTER ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

31 A. 300

80 Md. 518

LANGHAMMER ET AL. v. MUNTER ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 28, 1895

Appeal from court of common pleas.

Action by John F. Langhammer and Richard A. Dunn against John Munter and others, registration officers. From an order of the court of common pleas of Baltimore city dismissing the petition plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before ROBINSON, C.J., and BRYAN, McSHERRY, FOWLER, ROBERTS PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.

C. J Bonaparte and John C. Rose, for appellants.

P. J Campbell, Jas. H. Preston, Ed. D. Fitzgerald, and Wm. S. Bryan, Jr., for appellees.

PAGE J.

This is an appeal from an order of the court of common pleas of Baltimore city dismissing the petition of the appellants, praying that the names of James Bosley and Charles Williams be stricken from the registry of voters of the Fifth precinct of the First ward of Baltimore city. At the hearing the petitioners produced the registry of voters of the precinct and ward, and read in evidence so much of the contents thereof as related to the registration of the persons alleged by the petition to be improperly registered. The appellants' counsel, however, contend that these entries can only be used for the purpose of showing what the appeal is from, and are not evidence to be regarded by the judge in determining whether the register has acted properly. We cannot adopt this view. The duty of a register of voters, under our statute, is not merely ministerial. It is his duty to interrogate the party applying for registration, under oath, touching his right to register; and if, after this primary examination of the applicant, and of such other evidence as may be immediately accessible, he is in doubt, he may adjourn his determination to a subsequent day, when he must proceed to determine whether the applicant is a qualified voter, or disqualified. He is thus compelled to take evidence, weigh its force and effect, and finally to "determine"; and it is from this determination that any one who thinks himself aggrieved may appeal to one of the judges of the supreme bench of Baltimore city, if the election precinct is in Baltimore city. The appeal is by petition, and with it shall be filed certified copies of all the entries in the registry of voters relating to the subject-matter; and if, in the opinion of the judge, the petition and exhibits show a prima facie cause of complaint, he orders the proceedings provided by the act. After answer is made and evidence adduced, the court is required to consider, in making up its determination, the petition (which includes the entries), the answers, and such testimony, for or against the petition, as may be offered, and from the whole case, thus made up, decide whether the party is or is not a qualified voter. These entries are not only the sworn statements of the applicant, but also the deliberate findings of an officer charged with the public duty of determining their correctness, and, as such, should not be disturbed until their falsity has been established by sufficient evidence. Adopting this principle in the case we are now considering, what does the proof establish? There is no evidence assailing such entries as shown that James Bosley is white, 25 years of age, and has resided in Baltimore city 25 years, and in the ward 4 years. There is no sufficient evidence to controvert the entry with respect to his residence (the nature of which, as proven, will be hereinafter examined) in the precinct. The proof that his name does not appear upon the police census of registered voters is too uncertain to be entitled to much weight. The fact that Bosley was a seafaring man might fully account for his absence at the time the census was taken, even if it be assumed that the police performed their work with perfect accuracy. It was proved by the testimony of Charles A. Eisensick that he resided at 2225 Essex street, the place Bosley had stated as his residence in the ward and precinct; that neither of the alleged voters had ever lived there, but that he knew them, and in the month of August, 1894, had permitted them, at their request, to sleep for two nights in his kitchen; that they had asked him to permit them to register from his house, and he had replied that he did not object, if it was not contrary to law; that the alleged voters were two young men who "followed the water," and he supposed they were then down the bay, dredging. He did not know whether they had any permanent home. Thought they had not, and, if they had, he did not know where it was. He had know them for some years, and on one or two previous occasions they had, in like manner, slept at his house for a night or two at a time, but never longer. It was also shown that subpoenas had been issued for each of the parties, and returned by the sheriff non est.

This is a...