The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1900-05-30

afsdavft his vote was rejected as It was
also when offered second tine, and
for the same reason.
'The plalntiff had generally Coop
Grated with and supported the Repueis-
can party and had been considered and
treated as a Republican, having been
elected by that party inspector OF cleo
tioas, assistant assessor, and from 1887
to the present f.rHe township auditor,
but u 1888 had opposed the election OF
Governor Stone and actively supported
the fusion Legislative ticket, composed
of equal numbers OF Democrats ana he-
publicans. in opposition to the regular
Republican nominees.
"As Judge OF the election, the de-
fendant, when plaintiffs vote was ehai-
lenged. had a sworn and judicial duty
10 perform, viz: TO determine whether
under the rules of the Republican party
he had or had not a right TO vote, ana
this he did. and as far as the evidence
discIoses conscientiously and without
malice or any animus whatever.
POINTS OF FACT.
'eThe following points were present.
ed by the defendant:
The court is respectfully reque1teo
to find
a1 That under the rules Of the
Republican party of Chester county,
nlaintIff was not entitled to vote at the
Republican primary election held June
9. 1899. after being challenged until
he had made % a declaration to sup
mort the party; ~ an afiidivit that he
voted the Republican ticket at the last
general election.
"'2. That in refusing plaintln
vote defendant performed judicial
act. In which he would not De answer
able for a mistake of judgment or a
mistake OF conclusion
as3 The plaintff had failed to show
that the action of the defendant in re-
fusing plaintiffs vote was willl9l OF
malicious or that such a refusal was
unlawful or Illegal
80. That plaintiff had failed 10
prove clear and intentional derelic-
tion of duty by defendant.
"'5- That defendant in refusing
plaintiffs vote was acting within the
limits Of his Jurisdiction as judge OF
election of the Republican primary
meeting. and incurred no legal liability
for a mistake of judgment
"'6. That plaintiffs action can not
be sustained and judgment must be
entered for defendant.
".7. That judgment of non-suit
must be entered against plaintiff
Eve do not deem its necessary to
pass upon these points seriatim, as all
that are material to the issue will be
found answered in either our find
ings of fact or conclusions Of law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
"The important legal question pre-
sented is. Can this action, under the
evidence, be sustained?
"Under the provisions OF the act OF
June %, 1881. TO regulate the holding,
etc, of primary elections, the defend
ant was required to take and subscribe
TO an oath or affirmation that he would
'impartially and faithfully perform his
duties in accordance with the
rules and regulations adopted by the
Republican party OF Chester county,
for the government Of primary cleo
tions, meetings or caucuses, and the
same act subjects him to q heavy fine
If he shall willfully disregard or yio-
late the provisions of any rule duly
made by the Republican party of Ches-
ter county for the government Of the
primary elections OF the party, or if
he shall knowingly reject the vote OF
any person entitled to vote under the
rules of said party or IL he shall
knowingly receive the vote of any per-
son or persons not qualified as afore-
said
when, therefore, the plaintiffs vote
was challenged IL became the duty yOfthe
defendant. under his oath or afirma-
ton, as judge, 10 determine whether
II should be received or rejected, and
this in accordance with the rules of the
Republican party Of Chester county.
He was consequently compelled to
construe those rules. which he did land
it is not questioned) by holding that
plaintiff was not entitled to vote unless
he would make affidavit that he voted
the Republican ticket at the last gen.
eTal election
THAT affidavit the plaintiff declined
to make and his vote was rejected"
After citing a number of precedents
in both this country and in England.
to sustain his position. Judge Hemp
hill directed that judgment be entered
by the prothonotary in favor of the
defendant
INSURGENTS DEMORALIZED.
This decision has spread consterna-