Applegarth v. Carter

³⁴² Pearce, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was argued with the preceding case of Carter et al. v. Applegartli, and a per curiam opinion was filed in this case also, November 31^,1905, affirming the order of the Court of Common Pleas, refusing to strike the name of Charles R. Betts from the list of qualified voters in the 15th Precinct of the 4th Ward of Baltimore City, though our reasons were different from those which controlled-the lower Court. Charles R. Betts was duly registered in that precinct as residing at 39 Market Space, which was within the Burnt District, and the building from which he was registered was among those destroyed in the great fire, and no building has since been erected upon the site. His name was placed upon the same suspected list mentioned in the preceding case, and the ground of suspecting his disqualification, as stated on that list, was that there was no building at 39 Market Space.

We have detailed in the preceding case all the circumstances attending the making and handing in of this list and they need not be repeated here. The summons issued for Betts upon the filing of Applegarth’s petition to strike him from the list was returned by the Sheriff, “Non est — summons left on premises,” and the notice mailed to Bett’s address by the registers was returned to them through the mail undelivered. The deputy Sheriff to whom the summons was delivered to be served, testified that he went to the street where 39 Market Space stood before the fire, and found it to be a vacant lot, as were also Nos. 37 and 41 on either side of No. 39; that he had a map and plat of that part of the city; that he measured the distances according to this map and plat, and it was agreed by counsel that in that way he properly located and ascertained Lot No. 39 Market Space; and having so located said lot, he took the summons and laid it on the lot and put a half brick upon it. Judge Sharp held this insufficient service and therefore refused to strike him off, though holding as stated in the preceding case that the suspected list was such a list as justified ³⁴³ action by the registers.

As we held in the former case this list was not a proper list, we necessarily affirmed the order of Judge Sharp in this case, though we held the service of the