858 ELECTIONS. [ART. 33

Generally.

The petition under this section being in the nature of an appeal, can not
be filed until after the board of registry has acted upon the application.
When an appeal lies from the action of the board of registry. Collier v.
Carter, 100 Md. 384; Smith v. McCormick, 105 Md. 225; Wilson v. Carter, 103
Md. 130.

.The portion of this section relative to the presumption that a person con-
tinues to reside where he is shown to have once resided, and that if it is
shown that he does not reside at the residence given upon the registration
books, he is presumed not to reside in the precinct applied. Turner v.
Crosby, 85 Md. 180; Howard v. Skinner, 87 Md. 558; Ritter v. Etchison, 86
Md. 209; Turner v. Crosby, 85 Md. 688; Chew v. Wilson, 93 Md. 198.

In case of a suspected voter, the statute provides for constructive notice
of the petition to strike his name off, and leaving the summons at his resi-
dence as given In the registry is equivalent to service of the summons at such
place, although the voter has moved Carter v. Applegarth, 102 Md. 338. See
also, Applegarth v. Carter, 102 Md. 342.

On appeal under this section, the court of appeals is not limited to a review
of matters passed on below—see art. 5, section 9, and notes. Sufficiency of
exception to bring case up in court of appeals. Shaeffer v. Gilbert, 73 Md. 72.

If the order of appeal is filed within five days, the bill of exceptions may
be signed within the time allowed in other cases. Ritter v. Etchison, 86
Md. 207.

Legal services rendered in the trial of appeals in accordance with this sec-
tion must be paid for under section 125. Anne Arundel County v. Melvin, 10T
Md. 535.

As to the civil liability of Judges of election for fraudulently and mali-
ciously refusing to register a voter, see Friend v. Hamill, 34 Md. 298; Elbin
v. Wilson, 33 Md. 142. See also, Hardesty v. Taft, 23 Md. 530.

Under the act of 1890, ch. 573, an appeal could only be taken to the circuit
court after the final sitting of the officers of registration. Ticer v. Thomas,
74 Md. 343.

See notes to sec. 21.

1904, art. 33, sec. 25. 1896, ch. 202, sec. 24. 1904, ch. 254. 1906, ch. 703.
1910, ch. 236 (p. 108).

26. In the counties a new general registration shall be made by
each board of registry in the year 1914; such new general registration
shall be made in the same way, at the same time, and under the same
rules and provisions in all respects as are in this article made for the
first general registration; and the respective boards of supervisors of
elections in the several counties are hereby authorized and required to
furnish, whenever in the judgment of said board it may be necessary
or expedient, new books of registry for use in any of the districts or
precincts in the said several counties, for the transcribing of the names
of qualified voters residing therein from the registration books in use.
The said transcribing shall be clone in the office of the board of super-
visors of election by two clerks to be selected, one by the supervisors,
representing the majority party, and one by the supervisor representing
the chief minority party, as the said parties are now constituted in this
State. The transcribing shall be done by the said clerks, both present
at the same time, and new books, after being transcribed, shall corre-
spond in all .respects, and if they do not correspond at the conclu-
sion of the work or if any error in the transcribing be alleged to exist,
either of said clerks or any citizen or voter in any of said counties
may file a petition in the circuit court within twenty days after said
work is finished, naming the said two clerks and the board of super-