Mincher v. State

• Citation: 7 A. 451,66 Md. 227
• Parties: MINCHER v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 16 December 1886
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

7 A. 451

66 Md. 227

MINCHER v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 16, 1886

Writ of error to criminal court, Baltimore city.

I A. L. McClure, James P. Gorter, and H. A Stump, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Roberts and Charles G. Kerr, for appellee.

MILLER J.

This case is brought up as upon writ of error. The plaintiff in error, having been appointed the officer of registration under the act of 1882, c. 22, for the Twelfth ward of the city of Baltimore, was indicted for violating several provisions of that statute. The indictment contained seven counts, to each of which a general demurrer was entered and overruled. At the trial he was found guilty of the charge contained in the fifth count, and acquitted of the charges contained in all the others, so that the single question before us is as to the legal sufficiency of this fifth count.

The penal clause of the act involved is that part of the thirty-fourth section which makes it a misdemeanor punishable with fine or imprisonment or both, "if any officer of registration shall do any act which is by this act forbidden to be by him done, or shall omit to do any act which is by this act required to be by him done." The fifth count is founded upon that part of the twenty-first section which requires each officer of registration, within three days after the expiration of his September sitting, and within the same time after his October sitting, to "make, complete, and publish two alphabetical lists, one of which shall comprise the names of those persons whom" he has "stricken from" the registry of qualified voters, and the other "shall comprise the names and residences of the persons whom" he has "newly registered as qualified voters" at his preceding sitting, and also the names of those whom the judges have ordered to be registered; and "shall cause said respective lists to be published by handbills posted in such public places as he may select in his election district or election precinct."

The count charges, in substance, that "John F. Mincher, being then and there the officer of registration for the Twelfth ward of said city, duly appointed and qualified, unlawfully did make, complete, and publish an alphabetical list, within three days after the expiration of his September sitting," in the year 1885, "which said list purported to comprise the names of those persons whom he had stricken from the registry of voters of the First precinct of the said Twelfth ward, and did cause the said list to be published by handbills posted in divers public places in said ward; which said list, made, completed, and published by him as aforesaid, unlawfully comprised, besides the names stricken from said registry of voters by him as aforesaid, the names of divers duly registered and qualified voters of said precinct of said ward not stricken from said registry of voters, as said list falsely stated, and as he, the said John F. Mincher, then and there well knew," with the usual conclusion.

In disposing of the case, this court is confined to a determination of the points or questions of law designated by the plaintiff in error in his petition for the writ, by the decision of which he feels aggrieved. Rule 1 respecting appeals. These are four in number, and we shall consider them in their order.

1. The first is, in substance, that the alleged conduct of the officer of registration, as set forth in this fifth count, is not an offense under section 21, taken in connection with section 34, nor under any other section of the registration act of 1882. But we do not think this point is well taken. The constitution (article 1, § 5) required the general assembly to provide by law for a uniform registration of the names of all the voters in the state, and made such registration conclusive evidence to the judges of election of the right of every person thus registered to vote, and declared that no person shall vote at any election unless his name appears in the list of registered voters. The law of 1882 is the last general act passed in pursuance of this requirement, and it repeals all previous laws on the same subject inconsistent therewith. A statute of this character dealing as it does with the right of suffrage, is of the utmost importance to all the citizens of the state. One of the great objects sought to be obtained, as well by the framers of the constitution as by the legislature, manifestly was the securing of fair and honest elections by means of a system of registration of voters. The statute, then, must be construed by the courts in the light of this manifest legislative intention, and all its directions to and requirements of the officers who are to execute it must be regarded as important, and as having this object in view. When, therefore, the registration officers were required by this twenty-first section to make out and publish lists which shall comprise the names of those they had stricken from the registry at their previous sittings, the legislature unquestionably meant that such lists should be true and accurate lists of the names thus stricken off, and not false and misleading lists, including, not only the names stricken off, but of others who had not been thus stricken off, and who were duly registered and qualified voters. But this latter is precisely such a...