Cohen v. Harvey

Morrison, C. J.: The complaint in this case contains the following averments: That the defendant is and was on the 29th day of July, 1880, the duly elected and acting Clerk of the County of Solano, and, as such, has charge of the registration of voters in and for said county; that on the 6th day of April, 1880, the Board of Supervisors of said County of Solano made an order, in pursuance of § 1094 of the Political Code, authorizing a re-registration of the voters of that county; that at the time the said order of re-registration was made, and for along time prior thereto—that is to say, from the 17th day of June, 1876, and up to [71]and including the day said order was made—plaintiff was duly enrolled as an elector and voter of the County of Solano on the Great Register of that county. That the following is a copy of such registration: “ Voting No., 624. Registered No., G70. Name, Jacob Cohn. Age, 31. Country of nativity, Poland. Occupation, merchant. Local residence, Suisun. Naturalized, date-. Place, Sacramento. By what court, County. Date of registration, June 17th, 1876.” That at the date of said order his name (Jacob Cohn) was uncanceled on said Great Register; that at the time plaintiff was so registered, to wit, on the 17th day of June, 1876, he was, and ever since has been, and now is, a qualified elector of the said County of Solano; that on the 30th day of July, 1880, the plaintiff demanded that his name be enrolled on the new Great Register of said county; that is to say, that he be re-registered by the defendant as an elector and voter of said county, but that the defendant then and there refused to register him, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to furnish him the date of his naturalization.

To the complaint a demurrer was interposed on behalf of the defendant, the ground stated therein being, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled by the Court, and the defendant failing to answer, final judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. From such judgment this appeal is taken.

It is claimed on behalf of the defendant, that the plaintiff was not entitled to re-registration, for the reason that he failed to furnish the County Clerk the date of his naturalization. The question presented in the case must be determined by the statute of March 30th, lo78, as amended April 16th, 1880.

The appellant contends that the case comes within the provisions of § 1097 of the Political Code, as amended April 16th, 1880 ; and if it does, it is very apparent that the judgment of the Court below was erroneous. That section is as follows: