Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1917-10-20
VERDICT HANDED DOWN
in SOLE NOMINEE CASE
Dauphin County Court Dismisses
Injunction Suits Brought by
Philadelphia Judges

In decision handed down today the
'dupmn county common Pleas Court dis
missed the injunction suits brought nv
Judges oflthe Orph ms Court and the nres.
eht Judges Of Common Pleas Court No
to Keep the names OF other candidates for
the bench of the ballot at the November
election.
Papers in the suit were filed bv Judges
Stake and Monaghan. of Court OF Com
mon Pleas NC. 5, who are candidates for re-
election, and Judges Lamorelle and Ander-
son, of the Orphans Court who are also
candidates for reelection.
In accordance with the cacision handed
down today, Eugene G. Bonniwell and Fred
erick S. Drake, VINO were candidates at the
primaries for the Judgeship in Common
Pleas No. 5, will have their names on the
ballot while Robert F. Bonner and George
Urich will he allowed to have their names
on the ballot for Judge Of the Orphans
Court.
The opinion of the Court in these cases
conforms with its previous Interpretation Of
the sole nominee" clause Of the judicial
act, which the petitioners sought to have
revised.
In their request for an Injunction TO re-
strain the Secretary of the Commonwealth
from printing on the ballots the names Of
other candidates, the plaintiffs contended
that for the words votes" in the phrase
the total number of votes cast" the words
''ballOtS or electors should be SubSti-
tuted and II that were done they would
appear as the sole nominees with more than
SO per cent Of votes cast to their credit.
This the Court declined to sanction. say
ing that "one ballot may represent many
votes" through ticket cutting. and that the
Legislature itself In formulating the law
distinguished between the two words. The
Court holds the opinion also that in case
the construction were placed on the act
which the petitioners ask there would be
more sole nominees" on the ballot than
there were vacancies to flll.
After quoting opinions in previous cases
of similar character the Court says that at
has not been shown that any one of the
plaintiffs received a majority Of the total
number Of votes cast for either of the va
cancies for office The two vacancies to be
filled In each case represented two offices
and It is impossible to ascertain that fact,
the vacancies for which they were Candi-
dates not being distinguished in any way
the one from the other
"It Is conceded that no one of them re-
ceived a majority of the total number of
votes cast for all Of the candidates for the
two vacancies in the office. We must, there.
fore, conclude that they have not established
their right to become the sole nominees for
the office to the exclusion Of the names OF
other candidates for the office from the
official ballot
The Court then quotes its opinion in pre-.
| viCus cases to the effect that the burden OF
proving right to be sole nominee" rests
upon the plaintiff and that "in case Of doubt
| as between n special privilege and the free.
! dom of elections, the doubt ought to be re.
! solved in favor of the latter"
The motions to continue the preliminary
! injunctions are overruled and the injunc.
/ tions dissolved.