Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-04-20
THE FULL OPINION.

Which DeprivcS J. A. HyneS of the Position of Registrar of Voters
 and Places John II. FIana.
 gan in the Office.
 The following is the complete opin- Ion of Judge Prentice for the supreme court in the Flanagan-Hynes case: John Ii. Flanagan ys James A. Hynes, Supreme Court of Errors, Third Jul diclal District, January Term, 1903. l Petition brought to the Hon Milton A. ShumWay, a judge of the superior court, under section 1923 of the general statutes to declare the petitioner duly
 elected to the office of registrar or
 voters of the town of Waterbury at the annual town election held on the first
 Monday of October, 1902; facts found and Judgment rendered in favor of the petitioner, and an appeal for alleged
 errors in the ruling of the court. No
 error.
 The case is sufficiently stated in the
 John O'Neill, for the appellant (de-
 fendant).
 Charles G. Root, Terrence F. Car
 mody and John H. Cassidy, for the ap- pellee (plaintiff).
 1 Prentice, J. At the annual town
 election held in the town of Waterbury
 on the first Monday of October, 1902, 1 the petitioner and respondent were can-
 didates for the office of registrar of l voters. The one of them who received l the larger number of votes was entitled
 to be declared elected; the other was
 not. Twelve hundred and twenty-six ballots were cast for the petitioner, of which nineteen .1ere upon pastors; l. l 134 were cast for the respondent, four
 being by pastors. The respondent was
 declared elected The twenty-three I paster ballots, which were concededly valid. may, under the facts of the case,
 be disregarded. All the other ballots whether cast for the petitioner or the I respondent, were identical in all re- | Spects, save that the name of the pe- tioner appeared upon some and that of the respondent upon others as the candidate for registrar of voters. All of these ballots confessedly complied with the requirements of statute and l were altogether free from objection,
 save in one particular which remains to be noticed Both sets of ballots
 were headed with the word Demo cratic.' The claim was made at the
 count and is now made that this use of the word "Democratfc' upon the ballots containing the petitioners name
 fnvalfdated them The moderRtors in
 four of the six voting districts sus-
 tained this claim and rejected all of
 n
 tioner as void, thus accomplishing his
 defeat The judge before whom the petition was heard has declared them
 valid and adjudged the petitioner elect ed. The single question thus presented \ for our decision Is as to whether or Il not the presence of the word Demo
 cratic" upon the petitioners ballots { rendered them void
 The objection to the rejected ballots rests upon the claim that the petitioner
 was not the rightful candidate of the 'l democratic party. The petitioner was placed in nomination at. the regular ]; convention held on October 8, 1902, for the nomination of .democratic candi- dates for the coming town election. This convention was duly called and constituted. It was the only conven-
 tion held for the purpose and nom
 mated all the other democratic candf dates. The rules for the government q of the party which had been adopted by the town convention held in the fall
 of 1901 and before the act of 1901 reg. ulating oaucuses and primaries fPublfC Acts of 1901. Chap. 1T6) went into , operation, prescribed the officers who
 should be nominated at town conyen
 tiOns. The registrar of voters was moi included. The rules also provided fol city conventions, wherein should be nominated candidates for city offices l, The power to legislate for the party was expressly reserved to the city con } ventions The nomination of registrar of voters was under the rules to bt 7 made at neither of these conventions of delegates selected at primaries, bur
 at a special convention to be held il ] May constituted of the members of tht democratic city committee and tht . democradc holders of certain designat : ed offices. This latter body met ii g May, 1901, as provided by the rules ant Z nominated the respondent. The towl f convention assembled on October 3 e 1901, ae aforesaid, which was the frs held since the consolidation of the cit. f and town governments and also tn e uFSL uSlQ Sl1lCe StlQ CduCLS ACC or lSU went into operation, after nominating { candidates for all the offices to b o voted for except that of registrar O
 voters, rescfnded the rule adopted b,
 the town convention of the year pre- ; vious, providing for the nomination 0 ; fhe registrar of voters at special con yention in May, and thereupon place, E the petitioner in nomination for tha office. The chairman of the democrati ; town convention refused to recogniz the petitioners nomination and recon
 nized the respondent as the rightfu Q candidate of the party. The ballot d issued by him contained the latter p name The petitioner in this situatio, f caused the ballots to be printed an n circulated which are under review.
 There Is no question made of tn
 petitioners good faith in his issuanc
 of the ballots bearing his name and tn a democratic designation; nor is an I claim made that they were used 0 : cast with any unlawful purpose Q