Case ID: nys_118/html/1056-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re WALKER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    October 23, 1909.)
    Elections (§ 154)—Nominations—Certificate—Objections—Irregularities.
    Where it appears, on an application to review a determination of a city-board of elections, on objections to a certificate of nomination, that there were some apparent forgeries and irregularities in the petition of nomination, but it does not appear that the forgeries and irregularities reduced the number of - legal' nominators below the requisite number, the overruling of the objections by the board of elections will not be disturbed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Elections, Dec. Dig. § 154.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Application of James J. Walker to review the determination of the Board of Elections of New York City on his objections to a certificate of nomination.
    From an order, there was an appeal. Affirmed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, EAUGHRIN, CEARKE, HOUGHYON, and SCOTT, JJ.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in. Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

A careful reading of the order shows that it was the intention of the court that in reciting the defects alleged to have been found" in the certificate of nomination the court intended to recite the claims made by the contestants with respect thereto and did not find those claims were sustained as a matter of fact. And the conclusion at which it arrived indicates clearly that it did not find as a matter of fact that the objections were sustained. The evidence before us shows that there were some apparent forgeries and irregularities in the petition of nomination, but does not show such facts with sufficient clearness that such apparent forgeries and irregularities reduced the number of legal nominators below the requisite number to justify in overruling the board of elections.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.