The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1908-01-23

time before any general, municipal
or special election, appoint COM
petent persons, who shall be of
good character, and known in the
district where the vacancy occurs,
to fill said vacancy or vacancies to
conduct the election In said dis.
tricts.
Section IS of the Act of July,
1889, and Article 8, Section 2, of
the Constitution, provides that the
inspectors and judges, chosen as
aforesaid, shall meet at the respec-
tive places appointed for holding
the election in the district to which
they respectively belong, before 7
o'clock on the morning OF Tuesday
next following the first Monday of
November in each year.
Section 10 of the Act of 1899,
provides: that in case the person
elected judge shall not attend,
then the inspector who received the
highest number of votes shall APP
point judge in his place.
1t is provided in Article 8, Sec
ton I, OF the Constitution of 1874,
as one of the qualifications of
voter, that he shall have resided in
the election district where he shall
offer to vote at least two months
Immediately preceding the election
Judge Simonton i'll delivering
the opinion of the Court i'll Sanner
and Rowe, Nominations 2, County
Court Reports, 43, decided that
where the rules oi a political party
provided for the method of electing
judges of election to conduct pri
mary election that the rules of the
party must be complied with and
only those judges of election, elect
ed in compliance with the rules
were competent to conduct such
election and where the election in
any precinct was conducted by an
usurper or person not authorized by
the rules of the party to conduct
such election the return from the
district should be thrown out and
not counted. In this case, the re-
turn from Ogle precinct was thrown
out and not counted, because the
election was not held by the legal
judge Of election. His place had
been usurped, and the election was
not held by the legal officer. The
throwing out and not counting the
vote from Ogle precinct nominated
Koontz. Had the election been
held by legal officer in Ogle pre-.
cinct, the vote would have been
counted, and Sanner would have
been nominated instead of Koontz.
The voters from Ogle precinct were
disfranchised because of the act of
those who counselleG the usurpa-
ton as we'll as those who actually
usurped the place of the legal judge
OF election.
"In Yonkin's contested election
case reported in County Court
Reports at page $50 upon the face
OF the returns Yonkin appeared to
be elected Associate Judge, but by
throwing out and not counting the
vote for Laporte township, Strong
was elected. The reason for throw
ing out the vote from Laporte
township was that the voters from
the township cast their votes at q
polling place situate in the Bor-
ough of Laporte, instead of poll
ing place situate in the township of
Lsporte.
Judge Sittser in delivering the
opinion Of the Court says: THE
evidence is undisputed that this
polling place, viz: the house of Rus
sell Karns, Is within the borough.
These votes then being cast outside
of the election district of Laporte
township can they be counted ?
Since the cases of Chase VS.. Miller,
al Pa. 4ro and McNeill's case III.
Pa, 735, we cannot regard it as an
open question.
The votes returned from I,aporte
township were thrown out and not
counted, and the certificate OF elec,
tion awarded to Strong. Had the
votes from Laporte township been
counted and not thrown out Yon-
kiu would have been awarded the
certificate of election. The voters
from Laporte township were dis
franchised because they voted in
the wrong precinct.
"In Connell's nomination report
ed in 27 County Court Reports, page
3o6 the nomination was set aside
because of non compliance by the
election officers, with the irst sec
tion of the Act of June ao, 1881, P.
L. I2s, which requires the judges,
inspectors and clerks of primary
Ill -