Ritter v. Etchison

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 2ist of October, 1896, the appellee, Pllias H. Etchison, filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County to have the name of Frederick W. Ritter, Jr., stricken from the lists of qualified voters of the 9th election district of that county, on the ground that he had never acquired a legal residence and ought not to be included in the lists of registered voters, “ as he is not and never was a legal qualified voter of Montgomery County, in the State of Maryland.” And it is from an order of Court directing Ritter’s name to be stricken from these lists, that this appeal has been taken. The first question arises upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, because the bill of exceptions was not presented and signed within five days from the date of the judgment. It is admitted, however, and if so appears from the record, that the final judgment was passed on the 27th of October, 1896, and the appeal therefrom was entered and filed on the 31 st of October following, which was within the five days required by the statute.

The express provisions of the statute relating to the right of appeal in registration cases, that “ exceptions may be taken to any ruling of the Court at the hearing of any such petitions and appeal allowed to the Court of Appeals, as in other cases, all such appeals shall be taken within five days from the date of the decision complained of, and shall be heard and decided by the Court of Appeals as soon after the transmission of the record as may be practicable.” Acts 1896, ch. 202. It is also admitted and agreed by the parties to the cause, “ that the bill of exceptions was presented, signed and filed in accordance with the statutes and practice of this State, unless said statutes require the presentation, signing and filing of the same, within five days from the date of judgment, said bill not having been presented, signed or filed within said five days.” The bill of exception appearing to have been signed, nunc pro time, on the 27th of October, 1896. There is nothing in the statute regulating appeals in reg ²⁰⁸ istration cases which requires exceptions which have been taken and reserved at the hearing, to be signed within five days. If the appeal is taken within the statutory period, this is sufficient, if the exceptions are presented and signed in accordance with the general practice regulating appeals, as in other cases.

Balto. Bldg. Asso. v. Grant, 41 Md. 563 ; Miller v. Murray, 71 Md. 61 . The case of Plummer v. Wilson, 73 Md. 472 , relied upon by the appellee, is clearly distinguishable from this.

In Plummer's case the appeal itself was not taken within the period of five days, and the language used there must be construed as applicable to the facts of that case. The motion to dismiss must be overruled. We come now to the evidence to prove residence. Ritter testified that sometime prior to the year 1888 he moved from the city of Pittsburg, in the State of Pennsylvania, to Washington City; that shortly afterwards he purchased property at Washington Grove, Montgomery County, and erected a dwelling thereon; that