Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1911-12-12
JUDGE GREENE SAYS
NO ERRORS AT ELECTION
stoninaton Will Remain Dry for An
other Year as Result Of. Decision
Over Contest.

Monday morning Judge Gardiner
Greene handed down his decision in
the contested Stonington election.
He finds that property qualifications
voters can vote on license and that
the Irregularities alleged We're not
sufficient to make the election void.
There was demurrer 10 the petit
ton that the requirement of the stat
utes relating to taking the vote on the
license question We're not complied
with. the case being known as that Of
NJ. T. Keleher VS.. II. ]. Holdredge. first
selectman of Stonington. The demnr-
Ter WAS sustained.
In his decision. which covered eight
typewritfen pages. he said
The nrst illegality alleged in the
petition Is that persons who We're not
electors or registered voters were per-
mftted to vote, did vote and their bal
lots We're counted. Counsel agreed that
the terms electors" and Registered
voters" mean the same thing and such
appears to be the case. There is be-
sides these electors, another class
qualified to vote in town meetings. that
il those male citizens who are 81 and
have certain residence and property
qualifications. The plaintiffs conten-
ton. as expressed in his petition, is
that others than electors voted on the
license question. If any others than
electors had right to vote, then no
illegally is charged in 3a The de-
PENDANT claims that persons of tho
second class named, who. for brew
ity, will be called property holders.
have right to vote on the license
question. The question then. is. may
property holders vote on the license
question.
In argument the plaintiff stated that
ne claimed that persons who we're not
citizens voted. II so, that is outside
OF the questions raised by the plead
ings- The petition only says that
m hn M ia 49, rfst-
ed. IL any such had a right to vote,
this allegation is insufficient The
property holders have been voters in
matters upon which town meeting can
act since the early history of the state.
The determination whether liquor
can be sold in a town is a matter to
be decided in town meeting. As to
this, there is no question between the
parties, but the contention is wheth-
er IL is to be decided by all voters or
by the electors.
The statutes and acts differ in the
use of the word voters and electors.
but the judge concludes that the
property owners may vote on the H.
cense question.
The second respect in which 1T is
charged that the statutes were not
complied with is that certain ballots
on the license question were deposited
In constitutional amendment boxes
and yet were counted as lawful bal
lots on the license question. Il find,
however, no statutory provision max
ing void ballots deposited by the box
tender In the wrong box Where there
Is more than one ballot box i'm use
and some of the ballots are deposited
in the wrong box either by mistake
through the fraud of the election
officers, they should, nevertheless, be
counted, for IL Is unjust that qualified
electors should be disfranchised
through the careIessness or fraud of
election officers If ballots are not
made void by being put in the wrong
box they cannot be Made void by be-
ing taken out of said wrong box and
put into the right one.
Those ballots put in the wrong box
and then rightfully moved into the
found in the right box where they
should have been put in the first place.
The illegality of allowing a candi-
date for town ONCE TO act as moder-
ator can hardly be claimed to render
void the ballot on the license ques-
vote on other questions in that dis
trict.
Concerning envelope booth tenders
soliciting votes for license, Judge
Greene says the improperly of an
envelope booth tenders taking advan-
tage of his position to attempt TO in
fluence voters is manifest There is,
however. no allegation that their So
licitation influenced any voter, and IL
cannot be assumed that il did fnflu-
ence. Regarding the claim that the
petitioner holds that the vote should
be declared void because of the So
licitation, the judge holds that 1t Is
sufficient answer TO that claim to say
that the petitioner has been unable to
solicitation. The demurrer is sustain
ed In all Its grounds.