1252 ARTICLE 33.

voter be still upon the registry of voters as a qualified voter, the removal
certificate shall be granted and the name stricken off only upon the per-
sonal application of such voter to the Board of Supervisors or to the said
Board of Registry, and after his taking and subscribing to an oath sub-
stantially as follows: "I ............. do solemnly swear (or affirm)

that I now reside at ............. in ............ county; that I am

the same person who is entered by that name as a qualified voter in the reg-
isters of the ............ precinct of ............ county; that I have

removed from the said last-mentioned residence and I do request that the
proper entries and records be made, and that my name be erased from the
registers of said last-mentioned precinct, and that a certificate of removal
be furnished me at this time." The foregoing affidavit shall be written or
printed on the back of such certificate of removal, and when presented to
the Board of Registry of the precinct in which such applicant resides, it
shall be taken by such board and returned to the office of Supervisors of
Elections. When such certificate shall be granted, either by the Board of
Registry or by the Supervisors of Elections, as the case may be, the name
of such applicant shall be erased from the registers of the precinct from
which he removed.

Purpose of requiring applicant to produce a certificate of his removal from the
precinct where he was formerly registered. Such applicant is to be questioned just
as though he had presented himself for registration without being registered else-
where. Although applicant was not questioned as he should have been, he may prove
that he was entitled to register, in which case his name will not be struck off list.
Davis v. O'Berry, 93 Md. 710.

Upon the presentation of a certificate (in accordance with act of 1890, ch. 573),
that a voter's name had been stricken from list of registered voters in a town from
which he had removed, he was entitled to registration in place of his new residence.
Rellihan v. Titlow, 74 Md. 78. See also Kemp v. Owens, 76 Md. 238.

For a substantial compliance with act of 1892, ch. 239, sec. 19 (repealed and re-
enacted by act of 1896, ch. 202, sec. 26), see Carle v. Musgrove, 77 Md. 176.

An. Code, sec. 32. 1904, sec. 31. 1896, ch. 202, sec. 27.

40. At the end of each of such sessions the registers shall be made to
agree, where there is any difference between them, and then the officers
of registration having the custody thereof shall sign their names or initials
in their respective registry books immediately under the last name reg-
istered under each letter on said registers, so that no new name can be
added thereto without discovery.

An. Code, sec. 33. 1904, sec. 32. 1896, ch. 202, sec. 28.

41. It shall be the duty of the board of registry after the close of the
last-mentioned session to note for erasure from such registry the names
of all persons known or supposed to be dead, and the names of all persons
who are suspected of being disqualified under sections 2 and 3 of article 1
of the constitution of the State, and the names of all persons who are sup-
nosed to have removed from such precinct and have not taken out removal
papers, and of all persons who are suspected to be otherwise disqualified
as voters, and they shall before separating make out a list of all persons
so noted for erasure, with the address as the same appears upon the reg-