Morning journal and courier., 1892-09-28
IL; using the numbers corresponding
it'll the numbers of the paragraphs in the

all; using the numbers corresponding ,
with the numbers of the paragraphs In the
record.
g. The errors in the towns of Preston,
Norwich, Oxford, etc., were properly cor
rected in the court below.
with the word "For" prefxed to the name |
cf the Office, in the absence of any find |
ing that they were SO printed for the pur-
pose of Identification, etc., has been at
frmed by the court. Fields vs.. Osborne,
go Conn, ga. We have no occasion now
to add to what We then said. Such of these
votes as were counted, were properly
counted. Those that were rejected should
now be counted.
4. THE FOLDED OR CREASED BALLOTS
in the town of East Lyme were each fold
ed precisely alike, and in strikingly I'M
usual manner. The crease made by fold
ing produced enduring and permanent
marks of such nature that when unfolded
these ballots can readily be separated and
distinguished from other ballots folded in
the ordinary manner, and at a greater dis
lance than if marked with a pencil or with
ink. These ballots were folded with the
same hand or under the direction of the
same brain, and before being deposited in
the ballot box. There were similar bal
lots in the town of Sharon. 1t is difficult
to imagine any legitimate purpose for
which these ballots could have been SO
folded.
They should be rejected.
5. In New Haven there were nineteen
republican ballots, with each of which
were found in the envelope printed cir
cular from the republican town committee,
advising the voter to vote early, and CIV
ing the location of the voting place, etc.
There are so many of these votes as to
preclude the idea that they we're the result
Of ignorance, accident or mistake. That
leaves the presumption pretty strong that
the circulars were there by design. If by
design, it is difficult to conceive of any
honest motive for it. We think these votes
should be rejected.
THE OMITTED NAME.
As to the tickets issued destitute of the
name of candidate for judge of probate
the court says: We do not think that the
omission invalidated these ballots. In
every instance we can see that the party
had q plausible reason for it consistent
with good faith; SO that there is no occa-
sion to resort to an inference that they
were designed for improper purposes.
The party may have made no nomination;
the ballot may have been printed before
the nomination, or some other reasonable
cause may exist. tits expected, doubtless,
that the whole ticket will ordinarily be
printed. But If any part is omitted, ap-
parently for good cause, the question is
whether the legislature intended that the
ballots should thereby become void.
The statute does not say so in
| terms. 1t prescribes the general requi-
| sites of ballot, and then provides that if
| it does not conform thereto it shall be
void. To hold that such an omission as
| this makes 1t void would be to extend the
| statute somewhat beyond the letter, and
clearly beyond it's spirit; which is hardly
| allowable in statute penal in its nature.
| the wrong towns conform to the towns
where used are allowable. They consist
| mainly, if not entirely, in erasing names
and substituting others. It was done
! under that part of the twelfth section al
l lowing voter to erase, interlino and use
a paster.
That section was designed to alleviate
the otherwise rigid features of the statute
and is remedial. AS such it should receive
liberal construction. Hence, if mar
may erase and insert, he may procure 9th
ers to do it for him, or he may adopt the
act of others after it has been done. If he
may erase and insert he may fill blank
These are all acts of the same nature al
Il Gu6 AUS WulCu tu0 6GhtuGo GA DlCSSlJ pol
| mits Hence they are within the spirit O.
tho statute. A construction that would
limit this section to the thing expressed
would be unusual and. we think, unwar
| rantsble.
Using ballots sent to wrong towns, will
| names of candidates thereon who were in
eligible by reason of non-residence, did no
vitiate.
THE SUMMING UP.
The court considered the various con
tested cases from various towns in detail
and summed up as follows:
THE aIsr OF THE MATTER.
The superior court is advised that tn
ballots rejected by the moderators, Civ
ing no reason therefor, and those reject
ed for being double, should be COUNTS
in estimating the whole number of vote
cast.
That the errors in the count should be col
That the "For ballots SO called, should all b
| counted.
That the folded or creased ballots in Eas
Lyme and Sharon should be rejected.
That the ballots found in the envelopes wit
printed circulars should be rejected.
/ That all the ballots referred to in paragraph
| to II, inclusive, should be counted, except tn
mutilated ballot in the town of Sterling, whic
That the aH ballots referred to In the town c
LitShheid are legal and should be counted.
In 81 Of
for Judge Of probate was erased are legal an
That the four ballots described in paragrap
| 20 should be rejected.
That 1874 of tho 1se ballots rejected in the tow
| Of Bridgeport should be counted.
That the ID ballots in the town Of Winchester
| rejected by the moderator for the reason state
in paragraph rs, were properly rejected.
1
mour and Fem.
We can not concur in that portion of tn
opinion of the majority of the court, who
holds that OF the superior court, in asce,
, tanning the whole number of votes cast fo
secretary of the election of November
: 1890, should have counted the 500 ballot
which the evidence of the counters return
and moderator's certificates show were n
3 jected and excluded from the count fc
| being double.
1t was the duty of the relator, under til
, allegations OF his information, to prov
that he received majority of the vote
cast at such election.
In discharge of that duty he introduce
''the evidence of the sworn officials VIII
actually made or participated in the couu
! | of the ballots in the several election di.
tricts of the state, together with th
| counters certificates made Immediate
after the completion of the count, in dupl
cate, and agreed to and signed by th
counters participating in the count, an
flsd with and Endorsed by the moderate,
of the electors meetings in the sewers
. towns, and by them deposited, one in tn
ballot box and one with the town clerk {
each town, to be kept on file pursuant
section 237 of the general statutes.
"This evidence was further supple
, mented by the moderators' returns an
o | certificates of the vote for secretary, an
. at least by the evidence of one witness VIII
. participated in the court and declaratio
of the vote in open meeting, and who tes
tilted that the figures for the different car
didates for secretary, as shown in the tai
t ulated statement attached to the finding
D were either agreed upon without questio
!, | by the sworn counters who participated i
q | the count, or if there was question in II
. gard to whether certain ballots should b
= counted, are the figures which the model
9 ators in the several to wns or districts d,
q termine in the exercise of their discretio
under the law, and are the figures whic
. were declared by said moderators in ope
! meeting without question by those preser
at the time of said declaration"
., The evidence of the counters return
and moderator's certificates show. anon
. other things, that there were in all 50
q ballots rejected and excluded from th
count in the different towns for bein
! | double.
=