IN RE DEPRIEST.
The precise amount of such verdict hadalreltd'Y beeb·· by. the court, and there was no dispute about it. It was cori6eded that the amount· of the' verdict, if fortha plaintiff, must, be. l' per cent. upon the $80,000, with interest.. It was clear beyond dispute that theanlOunt must be the same upon another trial. The· am'dunt was really agreed upon, ,but the foreman neglected to hand the amount to the court in the sealed'verdict. The case was decided onthe principle enunciated in the case .of Dalrymple v. Williams, 81tpra. The offidavits were aLi missible to correct a mistake made in open court in not announcing the actual verdict agreed upon by thejury,on the principle 'laid down in Jack8onV. Dickenaanand Roberts v. Hughe8, aupra. It was upon this principle that the court allowed the verdict to be amended in Burlingame v. Railroad, 23 FedrRep. 706. In my opinion the affidavitsofallthe jurors would not hnvem-en admissibletd sustain this verdict·, much less the affidavits of eight :of thejurors,whoattempted to speak for .the entire jury. The objection ofthe defendant to· the admissibility of the affidavits is therefore sustained. His claimed' by the attorney for the plaintiff thM it was admitted u pan the argument in this courtthatthe land was worthleSs, and, that being so, it necessarily follows that the jury mustha\re adopted that theory. I do not understand that defendant's attorhey; made sobr,oad an admission, .but if he· did it does not follow that the jury' adopted that theory as thei basis of their calculationsillviaw of the evidel'l'ce. It follows that for ,the reasons hereinbefore stated a'llew trial .must be granted,and· it ·is accordingly ltia unnecessary'to no'ticethe·othel assignments oferroi'. '
re DEPRIEST et 01.
(OtrouCt court, 'E. D. Viromia. OctoberS1, 1890.)
L ELBO'l'IOIU ANDVOTlIlRS-SurERVISORS-AcCESS TO RlIlGI8'l'RATION BOOK!!. .' Rev. Bt. U. B. § 2026, provides that .the chief supervisor of "shall re-
qUire of the supervisors of elections, when necessary, lists' of the persons' who may register and vote in their respeotive voting precinctS. II . Section 2016 provides ,that the supervI.llors of elections. when thus required .by the cllief supervisor, shall make the lists above· mentioned,' and verify the same. Held that, in .the case of an appropching election for melJ!.bers of congress, the supervisors were'entitled to accesll 1;0 the registration books of. their voting ,precillcts,and h34 a right not ii:llerely to the names that had just been registered, but ·toinspection of the entire :registration books. .
'A registrar who deniestbe supervisors access to the registration boo1t8, or ohst1'uetsthem in makinlt a copy,: commits an offen!le within section 55!m; proViding Person wbo. obstr.ucts or binders the supervisors of election in .the perfOr!DIloJice of any duty required ot them shall be liable to Instant arrest aDd impri&and fine. ..· . : . .,
.....()BSTRUCTION BY RlilGISTRAR..
At.Law.·;. , In the matter ofClinton Depriest, E'upervisor of elections, andiltobert TaylQr" registrar of elections. in one of the voting. precincuiof the city
of Richmond, the, court sitting specially under the requirements of Rev. St. U.S. §2012. T. R. Borland, U. S. Atty.,and L. C. Bristow, Asst. U. S. Atty., for supel"Visor. ,R. G. Pegram, J. C. Lam-b,and O. V. Meredith, for registrar.
HUGHES, J .. In the matter.before me I am called upon to say whether, with reference to the election of mem bel's of congress to be held next week, a locahupervisorof elections appointed by this court may, when required to do so, take a copy of lists of the persons qualified to vote at the approaohing election as they are entered in the booksofa registrar of elec.tionfora voting precinct. These·lists are books," but they are spoken of by :congress as "lists of persons who may rep;ister.andvote." The United .States Revised Statutes :provide, in sec·tion 2026,: that the chief supervisor "shall require of the supervisors of electioQ, when necessary, listsof:the persons who may, register and vote in their respectiv.e voting And section 2016 prov.ides that ·the supervisors of election, when thus required by the chief supervisor, shall .make.the lists above mentioned, ana verify the same. Authority ,is thuS'giventhe supervisor of elections to demand access to the registra,tion book of the voting precinct, for.the purpose of copying its lists of the voters olthe precinct, and. complying. with the requisition upon him of tbe<lhief supervisor. In respect to the election about to be held for members of.congreBS the registering officer appointed by state authority is an election officer of the United 'states, bound by the laws of the United States, and amenable to the penalties prescribed by those laws. The registration books kept by each registrar are public records, open to inspection by officers of E'laction, and' may be copied by any such officer in the fulfillment of official duty. For the purpose of the approaching election these registration books areq9t only public records in the general sense as distinguished from secret documents in close and special custody, but they.are federal records, showing who may register and vote in a federal election. this latter respect they are liable to inspection, and to being copied by the supervisors of election when they are required to do 80 as provided by law. In thecase.under consideration the supervisor of election has been re.q\lired by chief snpervisorto fqrnish copies ofthe lists of persons who ,may register and vote in one of thevoting precincts of the city of Rich. ,mond. To obey tpat order he must have access to the registration book of· .the precinct. That book 'is a public record in the custody of the registrar ·. It is the duty oLthat registrar to give the supervisor for the access to the book for the purpose of making the copy called for, and if the denies or obstructs him in. making the copy that officer 'commitS' an offense denounced by section 5522 of the United States Revised Statutes, which makes him liable to instant arrest without process, and imprisonment for not more than two years, and fine not exceeding $3,000. His contended by counsel who appear for the registrar that the tw.o sections of t4e United States Revised Statutes first above cited
IN BE WHITE.
do not refer to the entire. registration book of the precinct, but only to the names that may have been newly put upon it at the registration beld a few days ago, and only to such of those names as the supervisor himself had made a list of. This is altogether too narrow and technical a view to take of the matter. The contention cannot be true as a general proposition. Suppose a law had been passed redividing the city of Richmond into voting precincts. Suppose, after this redivision, the state registration and election of 1889 had been held, at which no supervisor of the United States could have attended, it being an election held only for state officers. That registration would have embraced all the voters in the precinct, being the first that was taken after the redivision. Can it be contended that a supervisor for 1890, appointed as an officer of the election for a member of congress to be held next week, is without authority to make a list of any names save those offered for registration in 1890? Such a construction would render the provisions of sections 2016 and 2026 mere empty words. The contention is inadmissible. When the law speaks of the lists of persons who may register and vote it refers to all registered persons,-to the entire lists; that is to say, to the registration books. And when the chief calls for them, and the local Bupervisor applies for access to the books in order to copy them, he should be facilitated in making.the copy.
CoN8TITtlTIONAL LAW-INTERSTATE CoMMERCE-LICENSING SOLICITING AGENTS.
The borough ordinance of Union City,Pa., requiring all persons canvassing from house to house for the purpose of selling, inter aUa, books, or soliciting orders therefor from the general publlc,tO take out a license, and pay to the borough II fee for doing such business, in 80 far as it tOuches II citizen of another state, who, as the of a person engaged in the book trade in such other state, simply so canvassed and tOok orders for the sale of a book, the orders to be sent to and filled by his principal, isa regulation of commerce among the stlltes, and is void.
Such agent, having been arrested and convicted for so doing before a jU8tice of the peace and imprisoned, is entitled to be discharged on habea8 CQTpUB.
Sur Habepa Cbrpus. F. M. McOlintock, for petitioner. J. W. Sproul) for respondent.
ACHESON, J. The petitioner, Albert H. White, a citizen of the state (If OhioJaB the agent, and not otherwise, of W. J. Squire, whose residence ;aJ!.d place of business is the city of Toledo, Ohio, and who is also a oitstate, was within ,the limits of the borough of Union City, in the state of Pennsylvania, in canvassing from house to house for orders for the sale of a book entitled "The New People's Cyclopedia," and v.43F.no.13-58