Case ID: ri_22/html/0319-01.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

Peter J. Sherry et al. vs. Thomas O’Brien et al.
    
    PROVIDENCE
    DECEMBER 24, 1900.
    Present : Stiness, O. J., Tilliughast and Douglas, JJ.
    (1) Quo Warranto. Statutes. Caucus Act. Political Meetings.
    
    The board of canvassers of the city of Pawtucket, in recounting the ballots cast at- a political caucus for members of a ward committee and in determining the parties elected to such offices (under the provisions of Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 662, § 13, of May 18, 1899), exercises a judicial power which, no appeal being provided for in the act, cannot be reviewed upon 
      quo warranto proceedings brought to obtain such offices by the parties declared to be entitled thereto upon such recount.
    (2) Certiorari.
    
    
      Semble, Errors of a subordinate judicial tribunal can only be reviewed on certiorari, no appeal being otherwise provided for.
    Quo Warranto. At the democratic caucus of the fifth ward of the city of Pawtucket, held April 16, 1900, certain parties were declared to have been elected as members of the ward committee for the political year ensuing. Thereupon the complainants petitioned the board of aldermen of said city, sitting as a board of canvassers, for a. recount of said ballots under the provisions of Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 662, § 13, of May 18, 1899. The ballots were recounted, and the complainants were declared by said board to have been elected as members of the ward committee.
    Heard on petition, and judgment of ouster entered against the respondents.
    
      Huyh J. Carroll, for relators.
    
      Dennis J. Holland, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The court is of opinion that the complainants are entitled to the offices of ward and city committees of the democratic party in the city of Pawtucket, as claimed. Under Pub. Laws, cap. 662, § 13, January, 1899, the board of aldermen of Pawtucket had full power ‘ ‘ to recount said ballots and to hear and determine all questions raised for or against the counting of the same or of any thereof, and such recount shall stand as the true record and result of the vote cast at such caucus,” etc.

This is a judicial power which cannot be reviewed. Weeden v. Richmond, 9 R. I. 128. Errors of a subordinate judicial tribunal can only be reviewed on certiorari, no appeal being provided for in the act.

An order ousting the respondents and declaring the petitioners entitled to the offices will be entered.