Maryland case law › Rellihan v. Titlow

Rellihan v. Titlow

74 Md. 77 (1891) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedRobinson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe appellee, a resident of Baltimore City, applied on October 6, 1890, the first day of the October sitting, to the officers of registration for the fifth precinct of the eighteenth ward to be registered as a voter.

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is, a plain case, — so plain that after hearing the appellants, we did not deem it necessary to call upon the appellee. The question is one involving the right of the appellee to be registered as a voter, and, as there is no dispute about the facts, the question turns entirely upon the construction of the Registration Act. Now this Act, in the first place designates certain days on which application shall he made, to the, officers of registration, and then it designates certain other days on which they shall sit for revision and for hearing applications for reinstating the names of such persons as shall have been stricken off the registry list..

And then, to prevent the registration of the same person in two or 79 more election districts, it further provides, that when one shall have already been registered, he shall not be registered in any other district, unless he produces a certificate showing that his name has been stricken off the registry list of the district in which he had been previously registered. Such are the provisions of the Act, bearing upon the question. Now, what are the facts ? On Monday, October 6th, being the first day of the October sitting, the appellee made his application to the officers of registration to be registered as a voter of the fifth precinct of the eighteenth ward of Baltimore City, and, having answered satisfactorily all inquiries as to his age, place of birth, citizenship, and place of residence, his name was duly entered as a registered voter.

After he had left the office of the registers, he was called hack, and asked by them whether he had been registered as a voter in Frederick City, where he had formerly resided, and upon his replying in the affirmative, they then notified him that he must get a certificate showing his name had been stricken off the list of voters of that city, and present it to them by nine o’clock, P. M., of the next day, otherwise his name would be stricken off the registry list as entered by them. Thereupon he telephoned to a friend in Frederick, requesting him to get the

This is a preview of Rellihan v. Titlow. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.