COURT RULING WILL LET LAW STUDENTS VOTE IN CAMBRIDGE
City Councillor's Case Against Law Men Fades as Justice Qua Rules That Noonan's Charge Is Invalid
Two Law School students, acting on behalf of their colleague, Frederic B. Dailey 3L, won a skillful fight against the Cambridge Board of Elections yesterday, when Supreme Court Justice Qua ordered that a writ of mandamus be issued to enlist the plaintiff on the election roll.
Age and experience in legal technicalities in the person of City Solicitor Richard C. Evarts lost out to arguments of youthful practitioners not yet admitted to the bar in a case which may have far-reaching effects concerning the registration of graduate students in the University.
When Edmund Stephan 3L and Jerome Hafmayer 3L, representing the Legal Aid Bureau, appeared before Justice Qua yesterday and asked for the writ, the court reserved decision, but maintained that it was satisfied with the evidence presented.
Board May Appeal
Whether or not the Commission will file exceptions to the ruling and apply for a decision form the full bench was still undetermined last night, but the students were satisfied that they had won their fight against arbitary discrimination by the City against Harvard men legally qualified to vote.
The controversy hinged to the permanency of Dailey's residence. The student counselors maintained that he intended to live with his sister indefinitely on the grounds that he intended to get a job in the vicinity after graduation.
30 Others Affected
C. Brendon Noonan, chairman of the election board and witness for the City, testified that Dailey's name was not on the police lists and therefore he could not be a resident of Cambridge.
Justice Qua's ruling may affect the registration of some 30 graduate students who were personally challenged by Councillor Michael J. Sullivan. Although the law prohibits students to vote because they are only temporary residents, Dailey was able to prove he intended to live here and was self-supporting.