The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1896-02-14

Highest Of an in . Fs - U $ ''v' R''s''
'RH!a!I! Rs';lRS
ABSOLUTELY PURE

! ~
qualified electors OF said count
ing the board OF supervisors
election be held 10 ascertain thu
the electors OF SAID county, as PR
by Act No. 207 Of the public
1889; that the names of a suA
number of such electors were se{
and affixed to such petitions. ar
meeting of the board of supervisors
duly called and held in, Pursuance of
the provisions of said act, but that said
board illegally rejected the petitions
presented from the townships of Ban
gor, Lawrence and Hamilton, and re-
fused To grant the prayer of the petit
tons SO signed by more than one-fourth
/ of the qualified electors of said county
He prays for a writ of mandamus re-
quiring the board TO call an election.
The supervisors i'm their answer set
up certain facts which will be herein
after stated, and the question to be de-
cided is the sufficiency in law of these
facts to justify the action of the board
| 1t appears from the proceedings of
the board at the meeting held in pursu-
ance of the act aforesaid, that the whole
number of qualified electors of Van
Buren, County, as shown by the poll
in said county for state officers, was
1904, and that the whole number of
narnes on said petitions and also on
! said poll lists was 1549, the latter num-
Der including 20 names from Bangor
township, 10 from Hamilton township,
and ga from Lawrence township.
From evidence submitted to the
board, it was found that true copies
of the petitions from the townships of
Bangor and Lawrence had not been
posted as required by Act No. PAT of
the laws of 1895; that the copies posted
did not contain large number of the
names on the original petitions, and
did contain a number of names not on
the original petitions. If these facts are
found from competent evidence, then
the decision of the board as TO the ex-
istence of such facts must be regarded
as final.
IL is, however, argued by counsel for
the relator that the evidence submitted
to the board tending To show that true
copies of the petitions from Bangor and
Lawrence were not posted, was incom-
petent and did not disprOve the facts
stated in the affidavits attached to the
original petitions; and counsel for the
re ator has furnished the court with
very able and ingenious oral and writ
ten argument. contending that the affi
davits made by those who posted the
copies of the petitions must be held 10
be conclusive under the local option
law, and contending also that any other
construction of the statute would in
every instance put it in the power of
designing persons to prevent the call
ing of an election.
But the court cannot adopt this rea-
soning. 1t is not believed that an aft
davit which may be made by any resi-
dent electOr must he taken as undeni-
ably true by those who are to act upon
it in the performance of duty which
is judicial AS well as ministerial, nor is
it believed that there need be any prac-
teal difficulty in the way of the board
of supervisors ascertaining the truth IN
regard to the posting of copies of petit
tions as required by the act of 1895.
And in the case under consideration,
the board having found the facts from
competent evidence, the only question
remaining is, whether the facts as fourd
bv the board justified the rejection of
the petitions from Bangor and Law
renee.
The objec. of requiring the posting of
copies of the petitions, as expressed in
the act of 1895, is Ito enable each and
every elector to determine for himself
if his name has been fraudulently at.
tached To said petition" This object
being an important one, the provisions
of the statute in that regard must be
| held to be mandatory and not directo
nv merely; and while it is not conceived
that the accidental omission of one or
two names from the posted copy of the
petition, nor any other slight and uniD-
territorial error, would require the re-
lection of the petition by the board, yet
in this case, the posting of the copies
of the petitions from Bangor and Law
renee, with the omission therefrom of
so many of the names on the original
petitions and the addition thereto of so
many names not on the petitions, was
not only not compliance with the law,
hut was also evidence from which the
board was authorized To draw the con-
clusion that the names attached TO
these petitions were frauduIently OBJ
tanned. And the rejection of the petit
tions from these two townships left
only 1920 names attached to the petit
tiOns which were also on the poll lists,
being 70 names less than the number
required. This renders it unnecessary
to consider the action of the board in
rejecting the petition from Hamilton.
The writ should be denied with costs.
| GEO. M. BUCK, Circuit Judge.