County Commissioners v. Warfield

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The County Commissioners of Allegany County filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against the Governor of Maryland asking for a writ of mandamus to compel him to forward to the Clerk of this Court a certain statute which they allege was duly passed by both Houses of the General Assembly and approved by the Governor by signing the same as required by the Constitution. They also allege that this statute was duly signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates after the Governor ■had duly signed and approved the same. The petition was answered by the defendant.

No question arises upon the pleadings. The sole question presented is whether when the Governor of Maryland signs a “bill by inadvertence and under a misapprehension as to what the paper is and without having ⁵¹⁸ gone through the mental operation of approving said bill and having immediately thereafter erased his signature, can be said to have indicated and expressed his approval as required by sec. 30 of Art. 3 ofthe Constitution of Maryland? The section just referred to provides that “Every bill when passed by the General Assembly and sealed with the Great Seal, shall be presented to the Governor, who, if he approves it, shall sign the same in the presence of the presiding officers and chief clerks of the Senate and House- of Delegates. Every law shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, and in due time be printed, published and certified under the Great Seal, to the several Courts, in the same manner as has been heretofore usual in this State.” The case was tried before the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County without a jury.

During the trial two exceptions were taken to thé rulings of the Court, one of them relating to the admissibility of testimony and the other to the rejection of the plaintiffs prayer. The result of these rulings was that the petition was dismissed with costs and the plaintiff has appealed. First Exception. — The plaintiff having offered testimony showing that the bill in question was duly passed by the General Assemby and presented to the Governor and that he signed the same on the 12th day of April, 1904, in the presence of the presiding officers and chief clerks of the Senate and House of Delegates, the defendant offered to prove by the oral testimony of the Governor "that he signed the bill which is the subject of this proceeding by inadvertence and under a misapprehension as to what the paper being signed was, and without ever having gone through the mental operation of approving said bill, and that he immediately thereafter erased his name from the bill.” It should be stated in the first place that this objection assumes that this is not a case in which the Governor has intentionally signed a bill and thereafter changes his mind, but the objection of the plaintiff to this offer of the defendant is upon the theory that assuming that the intention to sign never existed and that the Governor when he wrote his name upon ⁵¹⁹ that bill did riot intend to sign it, but some- other páper; still it ís contended the testimony set forth in the offer is"inadmissible. • •' ' In our opinion the testimony is clearly-admissible not only to show the real intent with which the Governor wrote his signature, but also to show