The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1922-06-15
Supreme Court Of Errors
Orders Special Election
For StratfOrd COuncilmen
Town Council to Meet Monday June 26-Next
Decision.

electors in that he refuses to rescind
the resolution passed by the Council
purporting to discharge r. H Hunter
Town Manager, and continues to hold
SAID office although a large majority
OF the electors of said district con-
slider that he no longer properly rep
reSentS them
These charges are not alleged to be,
nor claimed in argument to be, in
accurate or insufficient But the
charges also recited that the respond
ent Turney had been petitioned by
the electors to vote to rescind the
resolution purporting to discharge
and one which colors legation of the
affidavit which the respondent claim
TO be an untrue charge and one which
the colors with its falsity all the rest
OF the af11davit and hence. renders it a.
defective affidavit
The Act does not attempt to define
the character, measure the extent
mark the bonds or establish the
standard of suff1ciency of the affidavit.
Obviously it does not do this, since its
purpose is to furnish to the electors.
II an election subsequently follows
the reasons which prompted all recall
proceedings The recall procedure
does not make it the duty of the
Council or of any one else except the
electors to pass upon the truth or
suficiency or merit of the charges
And the theory of this form of NUM-
c1pa1 government assumes that this
ctal inquiry, but as the REALTORS coun-
sci urges, an inquiry for the electors,
presenting a purely political issue.
The respondents say the patent pur-
pose of the relator was to spread up
on the record and present to the
electors false representations and by
electors to recall the respondent Tur-
ney- IF this was true it could not
affect this situation
The act does not provide for a de-
termination as to the truth or suffi-
cheney of the charges by the Coun-
Gil or by anyone save the electors
If the respond ents could refuse to
call an elections because they had
not determined the truth of the
charges in the electors affidavit, the
proceeding by recall would prove
abortiVe since the term of office
would likely enough end before the
inquiry was finished
So that in case the charges were
untrue this would not make the affi-
davit nugatory as part OF the re-
quired procedure of recall; the ex-
charges are for the electors not the
Council
The respondents claim that one
false charge in number of other
charges impregnateS them with its
falsity merits no answer The strict
est rules of ancient pleading would
not reach such a result Equally IN
sound is the claim that untrue
rest of the procedure although regu-
lar1y taken
Examining the part of this aff1dav-
it which is alleged to be untrue
charge, find that it is not a
charge at all, but mere recital that
the Council had been petitioned by
the electors TO vote to rescind the
resolution of discharge Of Hunter.
With this recital eliminated, the
charges remaining that the .respon-
dent Turney refuses and neglectS to
comply with the wishes and requests
OF the electors and no longer proper
~ represents them cannot be regard
ed as immaterial, when the Act makes
the will of the majority of electors
the very end OF the new system of
municipal government which it sets
up
We find no doubtful question of
construction involved in this prov
sion of the Act which gives to every
elector of the town of STAFFORD the
right to institute recaN proceedings
by filing an affidavit; if the question
were in doubt, a practical construc-
ton should be adopted which helped
make the legislative purpose in the
recall proceedings effective, rath er
than destroy them by enforcing rules
OF precise pleading and requiring
judicial investigation OF the charges
before calling the election
The town clerks certificate Is al
legged to be defective in that the
Town Clerk does not certify that the
petition was sufficient as provided
by Section ~ Section Is requires
him to certify whether or not the pc
tton is signed by the REQUESTS num-
her OF electors
And section = provides that, The
petition before being returned and
filed shall be signed by the electors
of the district to the number of al
least fifteen per centum of the num-
Der Of electors, who We're entitled to
cast. in said district, their vote at the
last regular town election" The certi-
ficate of the town clerk which is
claimed to be defective certifies that
the petition is signed by the said cleo
tors to the required number
The town clerk was not required to
attach to the petition a certificate
certifying anything other than the re-
suit Of his examination as provided
for in Section H. Nowhere in the Act
is he required to certify further than
this When Section 9 provides for the
furthed procedure when the town
clerk has certified the petition ito be
sufficient" it uses this as another
and shorter expression for what the
town clerk was required to do under
Section II.
Section 5 and OF the petition
herein are admitted: that is, it is ad-