Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1903-10-03
OPINION DELIVERED
BY JUDGE REVELL,
POINTS OF LAW IN CITY OFFICERS CASE
Illegality Of Blank Ballot.

Clerk OF said body by commanding II TO
consider the bond presented by him and
to accept or reject the same as il might
or not be found satisfactory and in one
form. "An answer having been filed by
an agreement in writing between the
parties. the matters set out in the bill ana
answer were admitted to be the facts in
the case. and that the questions involved
be decided by the Court on said bill and
answer. Afterwards Charles M. Robin
son, the holding-over Clerk, prayed TO
be made party defendant to the petit
ton but the Court dismissed the same.
AS TO THE FACTS.
"The corporation consists of Mayor,
Counsellor and six Aldermen. being eigltf
electors, each having a vote for officers
to be elected by it. After the nominal
tons were made for Clerk, and the vote
taken, il was found that four ballots were
cast for the petitioner, three ballots for
Charles M. Robinson, and that one of
the bits of paper called ballot was en-
tirely blank, containing no indication of
the electors wish. The Mayor announc-
ed and ruled that there had been no
election. the petitioner contended that as
matter of law he was duly elected Clerk.
The respondent agreed the converse of
said contention, and further that even if
the petitioner was elected that he had
forfeited the office by his failing to give
bond within ten days from the date of
election as provided by section s, article
2o, OF City Code.
"The case of Laurence VS.. Ingersoll,
4 r. \ 4
annotated was strongly pressed by the
respondent as identical with the present
case. That it has been a very strong
analogy to it cannot be denied. 1t is no
unusual thing for the Courts of the num-
erous States to fundamentally differ in
their conclusions on the divers points in
volved, and the Court in which such
points arise must determine the same
upon wei hit of authority and as reason
demands.
"Ist.-What is a ballot? Whatever
may be the sense of the word as usually
understood by the public, il like other
words used in the law has legal signih
cation. For instance, the word malice
in law does not mean special malcvol
ence against the party injured, but an
unlawful act wilfully done, or where
the act complained of shows depraved
heart, regardless of social duty &c. So
the word ballot in law does not mean a
mere bit of blank paper resembling in
size ballot, but paper indicating the
electors choice IN writing: Anderson
Law Dictionary ballot Bomland vs.
Hildreth, 20 Cal 1914; Temple VS..
Mead, 4 VT, SAL 542; Brisbin VS.. Cleary.
20 Mimi, IoS; People VS.. Holden, 28
CAL, 1886, Cushings Law Practice of
Legislative Assemblies in the U. 5. (IS74)
sec. ia, says blank ballots have no
effect, their only Office would be to Pre-
0sNt an election sOhich is not tie business
of electors, &c.
"The general rule is that ballots with
out any marks to indicate the electors
wish in any particular are not vOtes in
any sense, but mere thanks, and are net 10
be counted. Such a vote does not har-
monte with the electors duty. Attorney
General VS.. Shepard, o2 N. H., 383,
Mount VS.. Parker, 81 N. j., 34I; Walker
VS.. Oswald, 6S Nd, I46-I so; Anderson's
Law Dictionary ballot People VS.. Town
Cal, 500; County VS.. Casson, Johnson,
o5 U. D., 36.36o; Launtz VS.. People, II3
illinois 1877.
"Blank ballots have no effect, the
only office of blank ballot would be to
prevent election and this is not the busi-
ness of electors. They cannot by put
ting in blank prevent the wishes of the
other members to hold an election.
Cushing's Law on Practice of Legislative
Assemblies in the U. 5. (I874) sec. ia.
"The general principal is that ballots
without marks to indicate the electors
wish are not votes in any sense. but
were blanks ard not to be counted A
majority of those present is the vote of
the body. Attorney General VS. hep
ard, o2 N. H.. 3S3; Grant on Corpora
ton, II, Kyd on Corporations 1918;
Angel and Amy on Corporations, sec.
Iz6-7; Mount VS.. Parker, N. J., 34I;
Walker VS.. Oswald, 68 Md, I46-I so;
Dulon on Municipal Corporations,
editions, sec. 37o; Launtz VS.. People:
Walker VS.. Oswald, 68 Md, 1901, &c,
quoting with approval OIdknow VS..
Wainwright, 2 Burr, 1917, Wilcox on
Municipal Corporation, vol Ia. Law
Library, sec. $40, Marginal 2I6; State
VS.. Shinnick, 81 Ohio 227.
''In this case eight members were pres
ent seven votes for the three
for Robinson and one blank The great
weight of authorities decides that the
6iank was no yOts and should not be
counted or regarded. A majority of the
votes cast must carry. Clayton received
four votes, majority Of the seven legal
ballots. He should have been declared
elected. See authorities quoted above
herein.
without prolonging the discussion on
this point, the Court lays stress upon the
decision of our Court of Appeals in
Walker VS.. Oswald. 68 Md, I46-I5o.
which, however, Judge Thomas thinks
has but little or no application to this
case.
''7nd. AS to the point of limitations
the respondent claims that under the 5th
sec. of art 20, of ity Code. the peti
toner had forfeited his Office, even if
elected, because he did not offer his bond
in time not ten days.
We think there is no force in this OBJ
lection. The petitioner by the act of the
Mayor was prevented faom SO doing by
ruling that there was no election. The
petitioner could not appeal from this de-
cision of the Board. ! he not being mem
= Il. =