New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-06-16
RIGHTS OF VOTERS UPHELD.
IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE GAYNOR.
AN ELECTION VALID. THOUGH NO NOMINATION
WAS MADE. AND THE CANDIDATES. NAME
OR THAT OF HIS OFFICE WAS NOT

WAS MADE. AND THE CANDIDATES NAME
OR THAT OF HIS OFFICE WAS NOT
on THE OFFICIAL BALLOT.
Judge William j. Gaynor has decided that Ed
ward NJ. Goring was elected Police Justice of the
village Of Wappinger's Falls at the annual election
for village officers held the third Tuesday OF
March last although he was not nominated by any
political party. had independent nomination.
filed no certificate of voters making MIN candl-
date and his name did not appear upon the Official
ballots as provided in the ballot law. Mr.. Goring
nominated himself for the Office and got forty
four voters TO attach pastors to their ballots bear
ING the words: For Police Justice, Edward NJ
Goring" No votes were cast for any one else for
that office.
The village authorities maintained that ne was
not vadly elected and refused TO provide MIN win
a courtroom or 10 fix his salary as the law pro-
vidng for Police Justice required. Mr. Goring
retained Bernard j. Tinney. a young lawyer of
this CITY, who applied TO Judge Gaynor In BROOK
lvn for a writ of peremptory mandamus TO COM
pel the trustees of the village TO recognize Goring
election as Police Justice. The trustees repre-
scented in the argument and In subsequent proceed
ings by eX-Judge Joseph +. barnard Judge Gay!
nor's predecessor on the Supreme Bench.
In his order directing the issuing OF the writ
prayed for, Judge Gaynor practically sweeps away
the supposed necessity for nominations by certh-
cate in the case Of Independent candidates. Couh-
sci the trustees COntended tndl lntTe pelHb Ho
nominations for the office. one could legally be
voted for at the election Judge Gaynor holds That
there is no foundation for this construction ana
that there is no provision Of law requiring notice
Of the election of a Police Justice where no nonl
nations had been made. Section GO of the Ballot
law requires only that all nominations to Office be
posted Even If certain officials charged with
the duty of giving notice and fail 10 do so. that
cannot prevent or invalidate the election.
Judge Gaynor in his decision also says
The statute as has been seen, provided that TINS
office should exist In the village. ana be iled al me
village elections IL the trustees should pass reso-
luton - have the office, and they did SO. Hence,
the electors had the statute ana The resolution as
notice That nominated for the once
may seem singular. but that could not take from
the electors the right 10 I'll the Office by their votes
Nomination 10 office not formerly essential 10
an e,ection. nor does present Ballot law make
II Nor Is the fact that the name or me once
was printed the official ballots material
The contention IS that II was properly omitted Tor
the reason that II could not be voted for because
there were nominations for IT, There is nothing
otherwise for Section s. after providing mat mere
shall be provided many different kinds on oihcia
ballots as there are political parties or groups 81
independent electors making nominations. requf :
I'm the Gaze OF every election that The names ~ al
the Offices 10 be filed thereai shall be printed on
each kind Of ballot and IN the same section iHrtheT
provides that II the full number OF candldates ior
the Offices specified the ballots shall not nave
been nominated by any political party OF moe
pendent electors for whom a ballot IS printed
blank spaces shall be left on each ballot or such
pear. except for such faLur" 20 nomln ate. me
electors who voted for the petitioner did 50 by
means Of pastors. designating the ONCE ana the
person voted for to nj it, They had right - 50
tote Notwithstanding the omission Of the official
ha lots 10 designate The OfiCe ballot law section
lO4) lie, a perempiory writ issue