The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-02-06
CARROLL is SUSTAINED.
The Supreme Courts Opinion on
the Pawtucket Fight.
THE QUESTION NOW SETTLED.
The Court Says That the Notice Of tho
Last Election Was Sufficient-CarroIl's
Political Opponents win Drop the
Matter Now.

The Supreme Court to-day handed
down rescript in the Pawtucket mayor
atty case, overruling the demurrer of
Mayor Carrolrs attorneys, and at the
same time sustaining him. The court
rules that the seven days notice of
the election is not mandatory as
claimed by the petitioners, and that
Hugh j. Carroll is entitled to the office of
Mayor il he shows that IL was "fair elec-
ton" that no fraud was used and that no
voter was deprived Of his rights The
political opponents of Mr.. Carroll
will not continue the fight as
the opinion Of the, Supreme Court
The rescript sets forth that ward meet
ings for the election Of city offices were le-
gally held i'm Pawtucket on Dec 2, 1891,
aud that the Board of Aldermen forth.
with on the date last named declared
the result of the election :of mayor
upon the Board of Aldermen ordered the
city clerk to issue his warrant for another
election to be held on Saturday, Dec. 5,
1891; that the city clerk on Dec 4, 1884, is
sued his warrant for the election to be
held on Dec. s. 1891, and notified the cleo
tors of the city of Pawtucket to assemble.
The relators claim that the Board OF AL
dermen on Dec. 2, 1891, only three days af-
ward was illegal and void
The respondent on the other hand con-
tends that a second election is in effect
merely a second balloting in continuation
of the first election.
We find nothing i'm the statute to war
rant such a construction of the words
another election as the respondent
seeks to give them. In case of failure TO
elect on the first election the Board of AL
dermen are directed To order the town
l. as.A A~x fI.ess
election. that is a new election.
When the time and place of holding an
election Is fixed by law, the rule is that an
omission be given the prescribed notice
will not invalidate the election.
In such case the provision for
not mandatory. The time and place
being appointed by law the elector is
bound to take notice and therefore de-
sires notice from the statute itself. The
purpose of the prescribed notice Is TO give
great publicity to the election, but the
authority TO hold IT comes from the
statute
AS the only purpose of giving notice is
TO obtain n full expression of the popular
will, we are not prepared TO hold that If il
should be made to appear by return on
the writ that the electors had full
knowledge of the election held on Dec. 5,
1891, and threw a full expression of the
popular will had been thereby obtained,
that the election so held was void, not
withstanding the fact that the prescribed
notice was not given.
Actual notice to the great body of cleo
tors is sufficient. The question in such
cases is whether the want of the statutory
notice has resulted in depriving sufficient
of the electors of the opportunity to exer-
else their franchise to change the result OF
the election"
AS the case is before us only on demur-
rer TO the information we have no facts eX-
cept such as are sec out in the information,
and the information shows no facts in re-
gard to the election of Dec. Is, 1891, except
that the respondent received a majority of
the votes cast
The respondent takes the point that
even If it was held that the board of alder
men did not have power to fix their own
time for holding the election, that the
election was valid because in conformity
with the general law governing elections.
We do not see that the general law has
any application. The office of mayor is a
city Office. The general law does not cover
the election of a mayor. The only author
ity for the election of that Office is to be
found i'm the charter or the city.
The respondent also urges support of
his demurrer that it does not appear i'm
the information that there was not n full
and fair election and that even IL the notice
was irregular it did not vitiate the cleo
tion, in absence of fraud or of any claim
that the electors were deprived Of their
votes by such irregularity.
These objections are based upon an
erroneous conception of pleading, which
in information in the nature of quo ,Ddr-
rdnto differs from that in ordinary cases.
In such information it is only necessary to
aver that the respondent is in possession
of the office without lawful authority.
1t is for the respondent who is called upon
To show by what authority he holds the
Office and the facts upon which his title
depends.
The demurrer to the information is over
ruled.