Case ID: liquor-tax-rep_1/html/0216-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fourth Appellate Department,
    October, 1897.
    Reported. 21 App. Div. 634.
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles T. Watkins, Appellant, v. Alanson B. Bishop, as Town Clerk of the Town of Warsaw, Respondent.
    This is an appeal from an order denying relator’s motion for a writ of mandamus compelling defendant as town clerk to call a special town meeting for the purpose of submitting the questions required to be submitted by the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law.
    Charles D. Newton, attorney for appellant:
    There is no authority in law for use of a ballot machine to vote upon the excise propositions. There was no authority to use the ballot machine for the purpose of voting upon the excise propositions inasmuch as the machine has never been adopted for use at all elections by the Town Board of the Town of Warsaw.
    Botsford & Zwetsch, attorneys for respondent:
    The Town Board had sufficiently adopted the use of the ballot machine to lawfully use same for purpose of voting upon the excise propositions. Voting by other methods than the- ballot is prescribed by law. Art. II., §5, Constitution of State of New York; People ex rel. Bradshaw v. Bidelman, 26 N. Y. Supp. 954. The courts will not uphold technical objections to make the right of voting insecure and difficult. People ex rel. Hirsh v. Wood, 148 N. Y. 142, 149; Matter of Taylor, 150 N. Y. 242; Matter of Many, 10 App. Div. 451, 453; People ex rel. Goring v. President, &c. 144 N. Y. 616; People ex rel. Bradley v. Shaw, 133 N. Y. 492.
   Order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.