« AnteriorContinuar »
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
VI. Van Rensselaer vs. Van Allen,
XXVII. McFarland vs. Culpepper,
XXXI. Taliaferro vs. Hungerford,
XXXII. Taliaferro vs. Hungerford, (second contest,)
XXXVI. Blydenburg and Jay vs. Sage and Lefferts,
XXXVIII. Porterfield vs. McCoy,
LIV. Biddle and Richard vs.' Wing,
II. William Cocke and William Blount,
not, of necessity, abate, but may still proceed, at the will of the House.
the poll to the second day, in consequence of rain.
tingencies mentioned in the law ; whether they have occurred, is a ques-
of charge against a member, yet it seems that the defendant may waive this
which shall happen in the recess of the Legislature, but which does not
habitant of the State. At the time of the election he was a clerk in the
that he was not eligible
self, seems not to be repugnant to the constitution.
titled to send two members, one of whom the State law required to reside
adjournment of the poll, by the sheriff of Accomack county, and it appear-
he was an alien, and had not been duly naturalized ; or, if so, that he had
corrected by the House.
Europe for his education, and was absent till after the peace of 1783.
23 to 37
the Territory to be entitled to a vote, it is sufficient if the residence have
of allegiance thereto, does not qualify one as a "citizen of the United
715 & 725
vacant, chiefly because some of the clerks of election were not sworn
Deaf and dumb-The votes of, allowed to be received, even where the law requires
viva voce voting
Letcher vs. Moore
Taliaferro vs. Hungerford
the United States, he was deemed to be included in the exception made to
committee on his case : it was favorable to him
Reed vs. Cosden
and Council for decision : the choice must be by the people ib.
elections : held that a return by three persons, two of whom were not ma-
Jackson vs. Wayne
McFarland vs. Culpepper -
Draper r's. Johnston