(1) The jurisdiction of the circuit court over registration is purely statutory, and is confined to cases where the applicant has appeared before the election commissioners within the time and in the manner prescribed by the election law. State ex rel. Meyer v. Woodbury, 10 S.W.2d 524; Smith v. McCormick, 105 Md. 224, 65 A. 929: Cox v. Bryan, 81 Md. 287; In re Mulholland, 217 Pa. 631, 66 A. 1105; In re Hamilton, 30 N.Y.S. 499, 80 Hun, 511. (2) The provisions of the election law in regard to the time in which applications to transfer shall be made or hearings shall be had upon applications to register as absentees are mandatory, and unless complied with are fatal to the application. Gass v. Evans, 244 Mo. 329; Webber v. Hughes, 196 Ind. 542, 148 N.E. 149; 36 Cyc. 1160; 26 Am. Eng. Ency. Law 691; Endlich on Interp. of Statutes, sec. 434; Bryant v. Lumber Co., 144 Ky. 755; Corbett v. Bradley, 7 Nev. 106; In re Seick, 189 P. 314; Blair v. Ridgely, 41 Mo. 63; Cox v. Bryan, 81 Md. 287; School District v. Wallace, 75 Mo. App. 317; State v. Hilmantel, 21 Wis. 566; In re McDonough, 10 5 Pa. 488; Hudgins v. School District, 312 Mo. 1; Hope v. Flentge, 140 Mo. 390; Horsefall v. School District, 143 Mo. App. 541; Ousley v. Powell, 12 S.W.2d 102; State ex rel. v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486; In re Baker, 213 N.Y.S. 524; Ex part
The reason given for the request was that the building given as the residence of the voter was burned down, but there was no affidavit or other proof of that fact as required by Section 20 in such cases, nor was there any hearing upon the request. In Smith v. McCormick, 105 Md. 224, a petition was filed to strike the name of Thomas Carney from the registration lists of Baltimore City on the ground that he was not a qualified voter, and it appeared that his name had never been put on the "suspected list," and that his right to register had never been brought to the attention of the Board of Registry of the precinct in which he was registered and that no action was taken by that board as to it, and in Hanson v. Daly, 129 Md. 288, in which the petition was filed to have the name of Harry J. Daly stricken from the registration lists of Baltimore City on the grounds that he was not a qualified voter, it appeared that his name had never been placed on the suspected list, but it did not appear that any objection to his right to register had ever been made to the Board of Registry. The reason for the decision in each of those cases was very plainly stated by this Court, speaking through JUDGE BURKE, in Smith v. McCormick, 105 Md. 226, in which it said, "the courts have
Upon the facts stated, we are of opinion that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the question presented by the petition, and that its order dismissing the petition should be affirmed. In Smith v. McCormick, 105 Md. 224, where a petition was filed to strike the name of Thomas Carney from the registries of voters of the Third Election Precinct of the First Ward of Baltimore City, we said: "The evidence shows that on the 25th day of September, 1906, Carney applied to the registers of the Third Precinct of that ward to be registered, and that he was by them registered as a qualified voter. It further shows that Carney was never put upon the suspected list, and that his right to register was never brought to the attention of the Board of Registry after his registration, and that no action of any kind was taken by said board as to the name of Thomas Carney after he was placed upon the list of qualified voters of said precinct.