Case ID: minn_119/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bunn, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. R. KRASSIN v. CITY OF WASECA.
    
    July 26, 1912.
    Nos. 17,769—(257).
    Ballot — intention of voter.
    In a city election to determine whether license to sell intoxicating liquors shall be granted, ballots on which the voters had written the word “No” opposite the words “In Favor of License,” instead of putting a cross opposite the words “Against License,” sufficiently express the intention to vote against license, and were properly counted as votes against license.
    E. E. Krassin, a taxpayer, appealed to the- district court for Waseca county from the decision of the city council of Waseca, acting as a canvassing board, that at the city election in April, 1912, the vote was in favor of granting retail licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The appeal was heard by Quinn, J., acting for the judge of the Fifth judicial district, who made findings of fact and reversed the decision of the canvassing board. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, the city of Waseca appealed.
    Affirmed.
    P. McGovern, for appellant.
    
      Morgan & Meighen, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 137 N. W. 191.
    
   Bunn, J.

Waseca is a city of the fourth class, governed by a home rule charter. At a general election held April 2, 1912, the question of granting license for the sale of intoxicating liquors was voted upon. The charter provides that the “question of license shall be determined by ballots containing the words ‘In Favor of License’ or ‘Against License,’ as the case may be * * * and if such returns show that a majority of the votes cast at such election shall be against license then the common council shall not grant any license for the sale of such liquors in said city during the ensuing year.” [c. 5, § 5] Six hundred and ninety-eight ballots were cast at the election. The common council, after canvassing the votes, returned and announced that 338 votes were cast in favor of license and 349 votes, or one less than a majority, against license. The contestant, a taxpayer, appealed to the district court, where it was determined and adjudged that 351 votes, or a majority of all the votes cast, were against license, and that the decision of the canvassing board appealed from be reversed. From this judgment the city appealed to this court.

On the argument it was conceded that, if the two ballots marked as Exhibits 4 and 5 were properly counted as votes against license, the judgment ought to be affirmed. These ballots were identical and were as follows:

* That is, instead of putting a cross opposite “Against License,” the voter wrote “No” opposite “In Favor of License.” We find no difficulty in deciding that this was a clear expression of the intention to vote against license. The charter does not say how this intention of the voter shall be evidenced, and we hardly see how it could be shown more emphatically.

Judgment affirmed.