« FöregåendeFortsätt »
STATE OF MAINE.
House of REPRESENTATIVES, June 3, 1846. A majority of the committee on elections ask leave to report, in the case of Messrs. Colburn and Hersey, each claiming a seat in the House of Representatives, from the town of Belfast, the following statement of facts, and the accompanying resolve.
Henry Colburn was duly elected representative of the town of Belfast, on the fifteenth day of September, 1845. On or about the first day of November, he went to New York to make arrangements to enter into business. On the twenty eighth day of November, he again left for New York, taking with him his wife and two children, leaving in Belfast one son in the employment of a Mr. Kimball. He also carried with him a large part of his furniture, leaving in Belfast furniture enough to fill one chamber in the house of Thomas Marshall, expressly declaring, that he should return in the spring, to reside there. After his arrival at New York, he kept house and formed a co-partnership with Judkins & Adams. He was again in Belfast, with his family on the fifth day of April, 1846. Never having (so far as it appeared from the evidence before us) altered or changed his determination to continue his residence in Belfast.
One witness for Mr. Hersey “inferred that Mr. Colburn would have remained in New York if business had proved good, but could not say that Mr. Colburn had ever so said or written.” Mr. Colburn
Wm. T. Jobnson, Printer to the State.
also resigned the office of town clerk, before he went away in November, stating as a reason for so doing, “That it might involve the title to personal property mortgaged and recorded if the records should be kept by his son during his absence.” A warrant was issued by the selectmen of Belfast, and a meeting was held in conformity thereto, on the sixth of April last, at which time Mr. S. S. Hersey received a majority of the votes thrown. Thomas Marshall and B. F. Blackstone were called, by Mr. Hersey, to prove these facts, and the reason for issuing their warrant. Mr. Marshall said "he was opposed to signing the warrant for the meeting of April sixth, and did not think there was a vacancy,” but he signed it because there was an “implied solicitation for a meeting—there was a call from one of the papers.” Mr. Blackstone said he signed the warrant “ because Mr. Colburn was absent, but did not undertake to decide at that time that there was a vacancy,
but thought the legislature could settle that matter right.” The question to be decided is, whether, with this statement of facts, Mr. Colburn did lose his residence or not. That he had been five years a citizen of the United States ; that he was twenty one years of age; that he had been a resident in the state one year, and in the town of Belfast for three months next preceding bis election, has not been disputed or doubted. It was proved that he had resided in Belfast thirty years. It is also admitted and proved that he has been a resident of Belfast since the sixth day of April, 1846, up to this time. We have the testimony of three respectable and apparently intelligent witnesses that Mr. Colburn did, directly and unequivocally, say that he should return to Belfast in the spring. And they further show that these declarations were made at three several times; one on the day before he started, one on the very day on which he started, and the other in Boston, while on his way to New York. Here we have the intention to return and an actual return, and surely that settles the residence.
In the case of Richmond vs. Vassalborough it was held good law, that when a man went from one town to another with a conditional resolution not to return, but did return, his residence was in the town he came from and returned to. How much stronger the present case of expressed intention to return and actual return, makes Mr. Colburu's claims to a continued residence, your committee must leave you to determine.