The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-02-24
NATION NOT In IT.
He WILL NOT GET HIS GER
TlFICATE.
The Court Denies the Applica-
fiOns for Writs of Manda-
nus-There Will be q
New Election in
North HilO.

The petition of James NATION
of North Hilo for a writ of manda-
mus was to have come up for hear
ing on the 25th inst, but owing to
the interested parties having to go
by the steamer Kinau yesterday
afternoon it was agreed that the
case be heard before Chief Justice
Judd yesterday morning. In this
case the alternative writ was adj
dressed to the inspectors of cleo
ton of the district, commanding
them to issue to petitioner q certi-
ficate Of his election as representa-
tive which they refused to give.
Before the hearing like applica-
ton was filed by A. Horner the
opposing candidate, praying for
the same relief, and the two petit
tons were heard together by His
Honor. His Excellency G. n.
Spencer, the Minister of the Inte-
rior, was called as a witness in
both cases.
The main facts appear to be as
follows: After the closing of the
polls in one precinct, the inspec-
tors found one more ballot to have
been cast than there were names of
persons checked off as having
voted. They therefore drew out
and rejected one ballot which hap
pened to be for Mattoon. After
the counts Of the remaining bal
lots had been completed, the re-
suit declared, and the ballots seal
ed up as required by law, Portu-
guese was broughe in who declared
that he had voted but whose name
had not been checked off by the
inspectors. Upon his statement,
the inspectors counted III the. bali
lot which they had before reiseted
as above mentioned. The inspec
tors had also during the count re-
iected two ballots cast for Nation
marked (X). The vote for the en-
tire district without these three
ballots would have stood, Horner
70, Mattoon rs.
~ Mr.@Mattoon claimed that the
inspectors rightly counted the ball
I=lot which had at first been" re
iected, and that they wrongfully
rejected the other two ballots, and
that he therefore really re-
| ceived 81. in all. Mr.. Horner
claimed that the ballots should be
marked X alone, and that the two
uarked (X) were therefore prop
errv rejected also, that the in
specttors had no authority under
the circumstances to count the
ballot they had rejected, and espe+
cialIy after the result of the cleo
ton had been declared and the
| ballots sealed also, that Nations
remedy, if any, was not by writ O
mandamus.
The Chief Justice held that man
damus was a proper remedy II
| such a case; that the two ballot:
marked (X) were properly rejected
and that the inspectors properly
counted the ballot which they hac
at first rejected. Consequently thu
two candidates received rs votes
eaeh, and neither was entitled to
! certificate of election, but ther'
! must be new election to be order
ed by the Minister of the interior
The Chief Justice said it wa
unfortunate that the cross mark IL
a parenthesis had been put in tn
statute, but that the parenthesi
was merely mark of punctuation
and not intended as part Of tn
mark to be placed on the ballot
and that if there were any ques
ton as to the proper mark, tn
words Gross and "cross mark
used in the statute should prevail
The mark intended by the statut
| was either X or (X), and to hol
that the latter was the propt
mark would require the rejectio
of all ballots marked Y, and tn
would invalidate every election i
the Kingdom. He held that IL
only mark authorized by the sta
ute is a cross mark placed on Il
right of the name intended to
It voted for, and ir this he is su
IT ported by recent Canadian al
10 Rhode Island cases decided und
y laws almost identical with our ow