Case of Andrews

Massachusetts House of Representatives

Case of Andrews

1 Rep. Cont. El. 588

CourtMassachusetts House of Representatives

DecidedJuly 1, 1850

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Rep. Cont. El. 588 (Case of Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts House of Representatives primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Case of Andrews, 1 Rep. Cont. El. 588 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

On the twenty-sixth of February, the petition of A. E. Hutchinson and fifty-nine others, of Middleton, was presented to the house, and referred to the committee on elections.¹ The petition alleged that William O. Andrews, the representative returned from that town, had departed from the commonwealth, with no expectation of returning before the final adjournment of the legislature, and that consequently the inhabitants of the town were deprived of the enjoyment of their right to be represented in the house. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that a precept might issue for the election of a representative in the place of said Andrews.

It was generally stated and believed, at the time, that Mr. Andrews, after holding his seat a short time, had sailed from a northern port on a voyage to California, so that, unless some accident occurred to prevent the accomplishment of the voyage, he could not possibly return to the commonwealth for a period of, at least, five months.

The committee, on the first of March, reported,² without giving any reason for their conclusion, that the petitioners should have leave to withdraw their petition, and on the sixth of March, this report was agreed to.³

On the second of May following, the committee on the payroll were directed to cause any sum that might be due to Mr. Andrews, for travel and attendance, as a member of the house, for the session then about to close, to be made payable to his wife.⁴

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On the twenty-sixth of February, the petition of A. E. Hutchinson and fifty-nine others, of Middleton, was presented to the house, and referred to the committee on elections.¹ The petition alleged that William O. Andrews, the representative returned from that town, had departed from the commonwealth, with no expectation of returning before the final adjournment of the legislature, and that consequently the inhabitants of the town were deprived of the enjoyment of their right to be represented in the house. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that a precept might issue for the election of a representative in the place of said Andrews.

It was generally stated and believed, at the time, that Mr. Andrews, after holding his seat a short time, had sailed from a northern port on a voyage to California, so that, unless some accident occurred to prevent the accomplishment of the voyage, he could not possibly return to the commonwealth for a period of, at least, five months.

The committee, on the first of March, reported,² without giving any reason for their conclusion, that the petitioners should have leave to withdraw their petition, and on the sixth of March, this report was agreed to.³

On the second of May following, the committee on the payroll were directed to cause any sum that might be due to Mr. Andrews, for travel and attendance, as a member of the house, for the session then about to close, to be made payable to his wife.⁴

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Rep. Cont. El. 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/case-of-andrews-masshserep-1850.