The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-12-30
JUDGE GAGE2'S DECISION
IN REDDING ELECTION
Marking a Cross at Head Of
Ticket Does Not Neces-
sarily Vote Tt In Its
Entirety.
HOW TO VOTE
A SPLIT TICKET

win B. eager of the Superior Court 1T
the Redding local election case. The
decision was accepted as q guide by
moderators at the state election IN
November. In order that our readers
may have an opportunity of reading
the decision in full The Farmer pro-
cured a copy Of 1t from the office OF
the clerk OF the Superior court OF this
county. The decision in full follows:
Edward A. Pinkney's
Appl cation for a recount
Before Hon. Judge Edwin B. Ca
ger, Judge of the Superior Court
Dec. Z, 1910.
Decision and Judgment.
Edward A. Pinkney, a candidate for
the office of selectman as first NAM
ed upon the Republican ticket at the
town election for the town Of Redding
held October g. 1910, has brought his
|iapplica ton for recount Of the bal
lots cast for selectmen under the
statute in such case made and pro-
vided. The application was return
able November %, 1910, at 10 o'clock
Only counsel for the applicant appear
ed but / was informed that the other
cand dates were in the room and that
no oppos ton was made to recount
but, on the other hand. 1t was desired
by all the parties concerns
A recount was thereupon ordered,
and the town clerk was directed 20
produce the ballot box in court on the
23d day of November, 1910. at 1o
o'clock in the forenoon. The ballot
box was produced and Judge Booth
and Deputy Sheriff Crofut were, by
consent, appointed counters, and they
thereupon proceeded to count the bal
lots, and made report upon the same
day. Two hundred and twenty-six
To- v%Ov Az
one hundred and nineteen OF these
there appeared to be no question OF
their validity. This left one hundred
and seven ballots which were report
ed to be passed upon by me.
Time was taken to examine these
ballots, and now, on December Z, lSl0
I make the follow ng finding. viz:
The counters found in the ballot box
and turned over to me. package OF
sixteen ballots marked by the moder-
ator as void, and endorsed "No cross
In circle or both circles marked"
An examination Of these ballots
shows that nine of them were proper
ly rejected for the following reasons:
Three ballots had no mark whatever
Two ballots had the. two circles
Two ballots had one circle marked
and q cross mark not indicating any
vote.
One ballot had crosses over the mid
die Of the name and no circle cross.
One ballot had three line star in the
circle.
The other seven ballots had no cir
Gle cross, but all were properly cross
ed for two or more candidates and
should have been counted. 1t is not
imperative that there should be q
cross in the circle, as the statute pro-
vides for this cross only in case the
voter desires to vote a straight tick
ct.
1t is to be borne in mind right here
that this Is a recount for selectmen.
Under the statute a ballot may be
vo' d in toto, or, as in the case of Sc
lectmen. or whatever two or more may
be voted for. a ballot may be void as
to those officers and good as to the
rest. The statute provides, among
other things, in section Is, that IF
any ballot shall contain q greater
number Of names voted for any Office
than is provided by law 1t shall rem
der such ballot void as TO such office
only"
Forty-three t4s) ballots were found
in which a cross mark was va made IN
one or the other Of the candidates
for selectmen was checked upon the
ticket which had no cross mark N the
circle and no name was checked in
the column under the crossed circle.
The statute provides. in section 2,
that where there are two or more
candidates for the same Office on one
ballot, and a person who has crossed
the circle desires to split the ballot,
he shall put cross mark opposite the
name of the person for whom he de-
sires to vote. So that, for instance, II
a person, having crossed the Repub-
lican circle. should des re to vote for
Av,vv an al IA -
lican ticket. he will put cross mark
as against the name Of the person he
desires to vote for. and mark ng TINS
name will operate as q refusal TO vote
for the person whose name is not
marked. The statute does not In ex-
press terms mention case like
one we have, but, applying the reason
of the statute as applied to the case
Of split ticket where two or more
candidates for the same office are to be
voted for. 1t would seem to follow
that voter casts his vote for the
person whose name Is checked; and
this operates as a refusal to vote for
is not checked. Otherwise he appears
to vote for three selectmen. which,
where but three are to be elected
would render the entire vote for the
selectmen void.
1t follows that the forty-three (43)
ballots Of the kind referred to should
be counted for the person whose name
is checked upon the ticket.
Fourteen Q4l ballots were not
straight, but were checked as provid-
ed by the statute and need no CON-
ment.
AS to sixteen (16) ballots the only
question was whether a plus mark in
the circle instead Of an x rendered
them void. I hold them good. One
had double x mark; held good. Two
had rather pecul ar cross marks, but
not such as to indicate an attempt to
make a distinguishing mark: held
good. One had the circle crossed and
one grand juror crossed: held good
(203) valid ballots.
AS to the remaining ballots other
than those already accounted for in
the package marked by the modera-
tor. 1t is found that one is invalid be-
cause cross marked IN the circle and
the name of the aud tor in the same
column is checked, the statute making
no provision for such a mark; two
are invalid because they contain in
the circle distinguishing marks other
than cross mark; one is invalid be-
| cause it contains a blue pencil cross
mark in the ci~c1o. o~1 CO
ID because the circle is crossed and q
name already pIin,to -
plank space; one is invalid because ii
has distinguishing mark, the figure
$. In the corner of the ballot; and one
s invalid because a cross mark is ov-
er name In all these "a seS tho ha