The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-12-30
FERN IS MAYOR:
RECOUNT DENIED
Continued from Page Nine.)

may dispute the decision of the inspec
tors in their own district, meaning
as held, the entire Island of Oahu
whether any of them know or have
heard of any fatal Irregularities, o.
not; (2) that all must have such knowl
edge or information. In the former
view it was suggested by the petitioners
at their first argument that their case
is like that of creditors bill in which
one or more creditors represent all
Others In the latter view all of the
thirty voters and not merely one or any
less number than thirty must combine
to present a cause in order to make a
contest. In the former case the only
responsibility in bringing the petition
is that thirty voters desire a reversal
of the inspectors decision which they
believe to be erroneous. In the latter
case, in order to obtain reconsideration
of election results, emphasis is placed
upon the necessity of a contest or a
cause of action by each of the thirty
voters in respect to some one or more
decisions, which controversy could not
exist unless each of them had at least
heard of an alleged wrong decision
The petitioners attorneys says that
those whom they represent do not I'M
derstand why the court allows con-
test to be made and ballots reexamined
on the petition of one person, he being
defeated candidate, and not on the
petition of thirty voters. This is a
Misunderstanding of the causes for the
court places the petitioners on the same
basis, applying the same rule to each in
requiring some fatal fact within the
knowledge or information of the petit
or of the thirty petitioners when they
bring petition.
1t is urged by the petitioners that
the court has no authority to raise the
question as to their knowledge or in
formation, the question not being rails
ed in the answer. The answer, how.
ever, neither admits nor denies the Pc
titioners averment of their knowledge
or information but leaves them to its
proof. In a controversy of public
nature the court would not perform
its duty to the public if it did not re-
quire the status of the petitioners not
only as qualified voters but as having
and belief of their charges
to be shown before having the ballot |
bags opened.
In the American eases cited b5 the |
petitioners it is clearly stated that the
object of the notice of a contest of an |
election is not to perform the function |
of declaration at law but to apprise |
the opposite party that a contest will
be made on the grounds mentioned. |
Our statute on the contrary requires |
a contest to be presented by the petit |
ton. Even in statutes like that of Mas |
'achasetts permitting any ten voters to |
obtain recount of ballots upon "the |!
fling of the proper statement in writ |
ing by ten or more qualified voters of |
the ward that they have reason to be-
ieve that the returns of the ward are |
Opinion of the Justices,
1856 Mass. $500, a statement by ten or |
more voters that other than themselves !
n that any less number than ten had |
reason to believe this would not com
ply with the statute.
In Lawrence V. Norreys, 80 L. R. Oh.
D. 213, also cited upon the claim of the
petitioners that it would be unauthor-
zed practise for a court of equity to
question the truth of the averment in
her petition of their information and |
belief instead of leaving them to put
n their estire case, Stirling, J., said
lpon this subject: FNow, as to that,
t is undoubtedly true that as rule a
plaintiff is allowed in this court to state
lis case in the first instance without in
my way verifying it by oath; and the
court ought to be slow, as I conceive, |
when a plaintiff bona fde brings for
ward case, in shutting him out from
stating it, and from trying it in the
manner provided by law" Up. $3.50
Upon appeal, however, this ruling was
'eversed, the appellate court saying
Cotton, L. j.: ''But the jurisdiction
# the court to prevent its process be-
ng abused, and to prevent actions be-
ne brought which are mere vexation, is
original and does not depend on the
general orders of the court.
The plaintiff has not, in my opinion,
shown that he has any reasonable
ground for making those allegations of
fraud, and the conclusion which draw
5, that they were made without any
reasonable ground for making them"
p. 23D.
The inquiry made by the court in
his case was justified by precedent as
veil as upon principle.
A majority of the court find no
- i g -ox-or-;ro, Ebo for,nar ruliDo