|
CITIZENSHIP AND SITY'I• I;AGr; T\' MARYLAND.
rI
Persons aggrieved by tile conduct of election officials took the Sit
to heart, that they had :t remedy bv a. wit at law for dmna.,~'es against
tile elec_
Lion officials for corruptly refusing to receive their votes. ~ IL 1870,
the Court.
of Appeals decided twcr such oases,' ])()tit irising front tile election of
November, 7 s6). It is worth While to note that, in the interim, as we
slta.ll see,
a new State Constitution had been a<.lulrted, and a new Court of Appeals
elected.
In the first of these cases, I•:11>in vs. Wilson, the .jnd-e, of election ,
who
were sued by «-ilson,z wrlume carte they ltad refused to receive, had
testified
that they had rejected. NVilsin and that ire had registered another as voter , whir, at
the time,
declared the same disloyal sentiments. 'fire Court said this evidence was
admissible, as eras the fact that the defendants knew that Wilson differed
from them in politics, as elements of Inorai' to ire considered by a jury,
in
determining how- far the defendants were influenced 1>y bias, prejudice or
cor-
rupt motives in rejecbin~ his vote. If the ,jury decide the vote was
corruptly
refused, they may award exemplary damares.
In the second case, Friend vs. IIarnill,v tit(- evidence was that I-Iamill,
a
registered voter, was told at the polls drat his vote was challenged, and he
must take the voters' oath. He asked mho challenged hire and~wlult were
the charo'es, and, not 1>eino' toll, he refused to take the |
