Case ID: me_84/html/0562-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Walton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State vs. Erastus C. Philbrick.
    Lincoln.
    Announced at May Law Term, Middle District,
    Opinion July 21, 1892.
    
      Elections. Double Voting. School District. Indictment. Pleading.
    
    Illegal voting is an offense at common law.
    Wilfully depositing more than one vote during the same balloting for a town officer, or a school district officer, is an indictable offense.
    On exceptions.
    The defendant upon being arraigned for trial in this court, sitting in Lincoln county, demurred to the following indictment:
    "The jurors for said State, upon their oath present, that Erastus C. Philbrick of Edgecomb in said county of Lincoln, at Edgecomb in said county of Lincoln, on the twelfth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety, being admitted' as a legal voter at a legal meeting of school district number three (3) in said town of Edgecomb, held on the twelfth day of April, aforesaid, for the choice of school agent, did then and there at said meeting wilfully, fraudulently, knowingly and designedly give in more than one vote, to wit: two written ballots for the choice of agent of said school district, at one time of balloting, to the great destruction of the freedom of elections, to the great prejudices of the rights of the other qualified voters in said school district, to the evil example of others in like case to offend, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”
    The demurrer was joined on the part of the State. The demurrer was thereupon overruled by the presiding justice, who adjudged the indictment good, and the defendant excepted.
    
      O. D. Oastner, County Attorney, for the State.
    
      G. W. Heselton, for defendant.
    The indictment should conclude K contra formant statuti.” The words are essential in the description of statutory offenses. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 173; Bish. Crim. Proe. § 602; Bish. Stat. Crim. § 377*. The statute, E. S., c. 4, § 72, for punishment of misconduct of electors, supersedes the common law. Indictment should be under the statute. Com. v. Oooley, 10 Pick. 37; Com. v. Springfield, 7 Mass. 9.
   Walton, J.

Illegal voting is an offense at common law. One who wilfully deposits more than one vote during the same balloting for a town officer is guilty of an offense for -which he may be indicted and tried, and, if found guilty, be punished by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. So held in Com. v. Silsbee, 9 Mass. 417. And we think it is equally an offense for one to so vote for a school district officer at a school district meeting. It is equally corrupt, equally a fraud, and should receive the same punishment. We think the' indictment in this case is good, that the demurrer thereto was. properly overruled, and that the entry must be,

Exceptions overruled.

Peters, C. J., Virgin, Libbey, Emery and Foster, JJ.„ concurred.