The Act of 2d February, 1872, entitled, “An Act in 2-elation to tl2e election of Keeper of the Capitol,” is void, and confers no power on the General Assembly to appoint that officer.
(People of N. O. ex rel. Nichols et al. v. McKee et al. ante 429; People ex rel. Welker et al. v Bledsoe et al. ante 457, cited and approved.)
Civil action, for the recovery of the office of the Keeper of the Capitol, tried at the Fall Term, 1872, of Wake Superior Court, befQre-his Honor, Watts, J.
On the 27th March, 1872, the relator was appointed Keeper of the Capitol by the Governor, and demanded the office of the defendant who was performing the duties thereof under an appointment of the General Assembly. The act entitled “ An Act in relation to the election of Keeper of the Capitol,” under which the defendant claimed the office, was ratified the 2d day of February, 1872. The question as to the constitutionality of this act being argued, before his Honor in the Court below, he gave judgment in favor of the relator for the same reasons that are fully set *521out in the cases referred to in the opinion of the Court. From this judgment defendant appealed.
Fowle and Merrimon, for appellant.
Batchelor, Edwards & Batchelor, contra.
Reade, J.
The questions in this case are substantially the same as in The People ex rel. Nichols et al. v. McKee et al., and The People ex rel. Welker et al. v. Bledsoe et al., both at this term, and are governed by the same principles and for the same reasons.
There will be judgment that the defendant be excluded from,said office, and that the plaintiff recover his costs.
No error.
Pee Cueiam.
Judgment affirmed.