Norwich bulletin., 1911-10-17

The vote on the liquor license ques- ticn was definitely settled for the town ct Stonington by Judge Joel H: Reed sf tie superior court, after the open ms CT the ballot box and recount of the ballots cast on the license ques- tion ip the Third voting district. This action was brought upon complaint of Henry Rhodes Palmer, against the town of Stonington, through Heman. J. Hoidredge, first selectman, and ask ed for correction of the returns, which were alleged to be incorrect MT. Palmer was represented by Hull, McGuire & Hull, and the town of Stoh- ington by Town Attorney George R. McKenna, assisted by Mayor Charles F. Thayer of Norwich.
 MT. Thayer opened the hearinS by quoting authorities to show the juris- diction of the judge and the statute of 1909. He had not progressed far when Attorney Hadlai A. Hull raised the question of the right of MT. Thay- CT to appear in the case. MT. Hull said he had been informed that MT. Thayer had volunteered his services in behalf of the town and that MT. Hold redge had made no objection. Mr. Holdredge knew nothing of legal pro- cedure, but the court knew that coun- sel could not appear by consent George R. McKenna, attorney for the town, represented Selectman Holdredge, who represented the public interest, and
 
 that the wishes of the people were car ried into effect.
 Mir. Tnayer stated that Mir. HuIl's being an extremist on the temperance question evidently wanted no defence in this matter. MT. Thayer then de- clared that he did appear for Select man Holdre6ge, whether for or with out pay was his own private affair and of no business to MT, Hull.
 Judge Reed said he would like to know whom MT. Thayer represented.
 MT. Thayer replied that Selectman Holdredge in this matter represented the whole town of Stonington and not a part of it and wanted square deal for all the citizens, whether they were favorable or unfavorable to the liquor license question.
 Mir. Thayer replied: T appear for MT. Holdredge.' Judge Reed declared that question settled.
 Mir. Thayer declared that it is well settled law question that judges have special or limited jurisdiction de- fined by statutes, and action upon any matter beyond is void. In this matter, the judge Is sitting, not in the superior court, but in a specital statutory tri- bunal to hear a special matter. It is . case where the judge is not asked to count ballots that have been in correctly counted, for the complaint alleges that they were correctly count ed, but that incorrect return of the count was made to the moderator.
 MT. Thayer contended that the bal lot box should not be opened only when claim is made that the count was not made correctly. Return was made from the Third district that showed 47 votes for license and 21 against, with sworn certificate that the vote was correct. In the petition it is re- iterated that the count was correct but allegation is made that the return was incorrect.
 Thc petition declares that the vote on the license question as counted was the vote of the town was declared. No wrong box in the returns The fact of wrong returns should not be the sub ject of inquiry. The law does not con- template a case where the count Is correct and the returns wrong, and the judge cannot go into a ballot box where the count is sworn to be cor rect. To correct the declaration of re- turns was not contemplated in the law. If the count was declared to be wrong the court could legally open the bal lot box, but not if the count is cor rect, and this count has been sworn to by the proper persons as being cor rect. Errors in returns and not in the count are asked to be corrected and in a case where no recount is properly claimed The only error claimed was in the return to the mod