Norwich bulletin., 1917-09-29

tswith the list, so that the claimed de- fective adresses are B, making a claimed lack of legal addresses of 27. 1 find that among the B cases, the voting list gives 1T addresses which were incorrect at the time the peti- l tion was signed, some of them having been incorrect for years, and one or more never correct.
 In sixteen cases the petition gives the correct street and number. Tn thirteen Of the cases where the | list is now incorrect the petition gi-es correct addresses.
 l In six cases the petition gives ad- dresses correct so far as they go, but only of localities, without streets. In three cases both list and petition are wrorS.
 In one case the petition agrees as to street, but omits a local ity. which the list adds.
 In three cases. where the list is right, the petition is wrong. Tn three cases the petition gives correct streets. but lacks the numbers given by the list.
 Tn two cases both petition and list l agree fn correctness.
 In one case the petition has the right street and no number, while the list has the correct number, but an in accurately named street.
 There are about thirty cases where
 the addresses on the petition and on
 the list do not wholly agree, the dis
 
 ones to very complete ones.
 Fhe claim of the respondents is that the address of the voting list must
 be followed verbatim ct literatinn, without reference to whether they are or ever have been correct: that this is the mandate of the legislature. If this is true, the least variation in one address essential to the required num- Der would be enough to nulify any petition.
 Thn netff1oner. on rbe ofhar hand claim that the provision as to street addresses is only directory, because it is intended merely to make the select mems work more convenient and has no bearing on the substance of the requirement, which Is that ope tenth of the voters should call for ballot.
 In this case it is evident that the petitioners have made an effort to fol- that they have been fairly successful in doing so. as above nineteen twen- tieths of the petitioners have given their addresses as stated in the last of fcial voting list The question does not arise whether the petition would be sufficient if there had been no at tempt to follow the direction Of the statute and if that direction had been wholly disregarded. Here there has been a bona flde attempt to comply the selectnaen whatever assistance in the performance of their duties would i be given by a copy of the street ad- l dresses s5 stated in the last voting | list. I
 The petitioners further claim that if | the statute is mandatory at all it is so i only where the law requires the ad- l dresses of voters to be placed upon | the voting list. think there Is noth- | ing in this claim. It seems to me that | the better interpretation of the statute | R. $. 1902, Section 1902. read in the |! light of Section 1894 and of Chapter 1 i16 of the Acts of 1917 and of Chap | ter BPS of the same session. is that | the registrars are not required to en- | ter the residences of voters on the | voting list, hs1t only the residences of persons ito be made" except in the ! cities and towns mentioned in Section | 1894 as amended. If this view be cor ! rect, the registrars are required to | nut the street addresses of voters on l the list only in certain named towns and cities, and are not required to put | them on the list in the remaining