Case ID: me_88/html/0054-01.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

Charles H. Redington, in equity, vs. Martin F. Bartlett.
    Kennebec.
    Opinion May 29, 1895.
    
      Elections. Mayor of Watermlle. Casting Vote. B. S., c. 4, § 55. Special Laws, 1887, c. 195.
    
    Principle in preceding case applied.
    In equity.
    This was an appeal in equity, heard on petition, answer and testimony, brought to this court by the defendant as provided by R. S., c,. 4, § 55, relating to contested elections. The following is the decree from which the appeal was taken :
    "State o.f Maine. Kennebec, ss. : Supreme Judicial Court.Oliatrles H. Redington v. Martin F. Bartlett.
    
    "And now, -upon the fifteenth day of April, A. D., 1895, the above entitled case came on for hearing, before the Honorable William R. Whitehouse , Justice of said Court, and thereupon after hearing the testimony of parties and witnesses and arguments of counsel, said justice determined and decided that the petitioner was duly elected to the office of city treasurer of the city of Waterville, as set forth in his petition.”
    To which determination and judgment the defendant appeals for the following reasons : ■
    "1st. That the presiding justice, after objection on the paft of the defendant, required Christian Knauff, witness for the complainant in the case, and mayor of the city of Waterville, to testify as indicated in the following question and answer.
    "Question. For whom did you vote? (Objected to and admitted. Exception allowed.) Answer. I voted for Mr. Bartlett, of coui’se, Martin F. Bartlett. My vote was counted with the other votes for city treasurer.”
    "2d. That by the charter of the city of Waterville the mayor of said city is entitled to participate in the election of subordinate officers, which he did in this instance, so that neither the complainant nor any other person received a sufficient number of votes to elect him to the said office of city treasurer.”
    Which appeal the said defendant prays may be allowed and approved as provided in B. S., c. 4, § 55.
    
      G. F. Johnson, for plaintiff.
    
      W. G. Philbrook, for defendant.
    Counsel argued : (1st,) That the election of a city treasurer of Waterville, he being one of the subordinate officers contemplated by the charter, is to be performed by the city council of Waterville. (2nd,) That the mayor is, by the city charter, made a member of the city council. (3rd,) That as a member, even if he is the presiding officer, and making all due allowance for the restriction claimed in the charter that he has only a casting vote, he would still have the right, in elections, according to Cushing’s Parliamentary Law, to vote with the other members. (4th.) That the provisions of B. S., c. 3, § 34, do not apply to the city charter of Waterville. (5th,) That by inference the ruling in King v. Andrews, 77 Maine, 224, sustains the position taken by the defendant. Counsel cited : 3 Am. & Eng. Encly. Law, "casting vote; ” 1 Bl. Com. p. 181, note in Sharswood’s ed. ; Robertson v. Bullions, 1 Kernan, 243.
    Admission of testimony : People v. Pease, 27 N. Y. 45 : S. C. 84 Am. Dec. note p. 272.
    Sitting : Peters, C. J., Walton, Emery, Foster, Haskell, Wiswell, JJ.
   Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.

Decree beloio affirmed.