Meloy v. Scott

• Decision Date: 16 June 1896
• Citation: 35 A. 20,83 Md. 375
• Parties: MELOY v. SCOTT, OFFICER OF REGISTRATION, ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

35 A. 20

83 Md. 375

MELOY v. SCOTT, OFFICER OF REGISTRATION, ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 16, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Prince George county.

Petition by William A. Meloy to review the act of Bennett C. Scott officer of registration of the Thirteenth election district of Prince George county, Md., and John W. Belt, clerk, in striking name of petitioner from the list of voters. From an order sustaining the ruling of the registration officer petitioner appeals. Dismissed.

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

William A. Meloy, in pro. per.

Richard E. Brandt, for appellees.

FOWLER J.

The appellant claims to be a resident of Prince George county, in this state, and that he was a registered voter of the Thirteenth election district thereof on the 10th day of October last, when his name was stricken from the registry of qualified voters by the appellee Bennett C. Scott registration officer for said district. From this action of the appellee the appellant appealed to the circuit court for said county, but that court affirmed the ruling of the appellee, and hence this appeal. Subsequent to the trial of this cause below, and before it was heard on appeal in this court, the law under which the appellant claimed the right to be registered was repealed, and a new law has been enacted by the legislature, by the terms of which a new registration is required to be made by new officers. Hence, by the well-settled law applicable to such a condition, the rights of the parties must be determined by the law existing when the case is heard and finally determined in this court, and the law existing at the time the cause was decided by the lower court must be treated as though it had never existed except in so far as the former law is saved by express provision of the repealing law. And especially is this so when, as here, the repealing law makes sweeping changes and introduces a new system before unknown in this state. Wade v. Industrial School, 43 Md. 179; Dashiell v. Mayor, etc., 45 Md. 615; Keller v. State, 12 Md. 322; Day v. Day, 22 Md. 530; Price v. Nesbitt, 29 Md. 263; Montague v. State, 54 Md. 481. Assuming, without deciding, that the order appealed from is erroneous, where is the injury to the appellant? His right to vote at the next election will be determined by the new, and not by the old, test. Under the new law, "only persons constitutionally qualified to vote in the precinct at the next general election, and who have personally applied for registration, shall be registered as qualified voters. Act 1896, c. 202, § 16, subsec. 4. It is true that it is provided by subsection 5 of the section...