Majority
p. 1043GOODMAN v. BAINTON. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. January 18, 1895.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and PARKER, JJ.
Headnote
.Voters—Residence—Seminary op Learning.Under Const, art. 2, § 3, providing that, for purposes of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained a residence while a student in any seminary of learning, it is immaterial that a student has no other domicile than such seminary.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Application of Oscar H. Goodman to strike from the list or registry of voters of the Twenty-Fifth election district of the Twenty-First assembly district the name of Henry W. Bainton. The application was granted, and said Bainton appeals.
Affirmed.
Thomas F. Wentworth, for appellant.
Charles H. Knox and Louis H. Hahlo, for respondent.
Henry W. Bainton registered from No. 41 East Sixty-Ninth street, a seminary of learning, known as the “Union Theological Seminary.” He had occupied the same apartment for more
p. 1044
than one year, and had no other domicile. He was born in the city of New York, but in another assembly district than that in which the-seminary was situated. His father died in 1890, since which time the building in which his father lived has been demolished. The motion to strike his name from the registry was made on the ground that the constitution forbids the acquisition by a student of a residence, for the purpose of voting, at a seminary of learning. It reads-as follows:
“For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained oh lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any almshouse, or other asylum at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.”" Const, art. 2, § 3.
The learned judge reached the conclusion that Bainton did not gain a residence while a student at the Union Theological Seminary. That his decision was right seems to be so clearly written in the constitution as not to warrant any discussion of the subject However,, it should be said that the assurance which to some can only come-from final judicial decision is afforded by Silvey v. Lindsay, 107 N. Y. 55 , 13 N. E. 444 . The order should be affirmed. All concur.
Cases cited
- Silvey v. Lindsay 107 N. Y. 55 p. 1044