The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-06-19

WtLH AH luCuIHp1ut Av8dhy Qu&hhSA to exercise the powers and per- form the duties which appertain to 1t.
 Stafford vs. Cook, 262 S. w. 697.
 "section 561 of the general stat utcs provides:
 (1) That each registrar of vot- CTS shall appoint deputy regis trar.
 (2) That in case of "''" removal or resignation of such registrar the deputy shall become registrar.
 (S) That in case of vacancy in the office of registrar on refusal or failure to accept the office or to have appointed g deputy the select men and town clerk shall appoint a registrar.
 "In the 1918 revision of the gem eral statutes these three provisions were stated in separate sections the third being captioned: VACANCY IN OFFICE or REGISTRAR
 The law abhors vacancies in public office and great precaution Is usually taken to prevent them
 Hutcheson vs. Pitts, 27S $. w. e39 (Ark.)
 "Courts generally indulge in a strong presumtioR against q legis- lative intent, to cieate by statute condition which may result, Tn an executive or administrative of- flee, becoming for any period of time wholly vacant and unoccupied by one fully authorized to exercise It's functions.
 State vs. John, 2S7 Pac. l2 (Wash.)
 "From these points of observa. ton 1t is obvious that when the general assembly had under con- ideration--registra of voters--it went as far as was possible to avoid the occurrence of . vacancy in the office, but by Section $40 of the general statutes of 1918. now appearing as the latter part of Section 56i of the general statutes 1t recognized the possibility. where one elected refused the office or where c registrar neglected 10 ap- point a deputy and went out Of offaee that Q vacancy would occur. Ana for the filling of this only kind of a, vacancy which the general as- sembly recognized as q vacancy it provided how the vacancy should be filled.
 Tt has been held that, when the constitution enumerates the events that shall constitute va- cancy in q particular office, we must suppose all other causes of vacancy excluded, especially when this construction can lead to no in- furious results.'
 People vs. Whitman. 10 Cal. 3s. If this rule. applicable where the events that are to constitute a vacancy are prescribed by constt- tuition. is sound, the same rule ap- piicable to events prescribed by statute should apply and If ap- piled to Section 561 of the general statutes. supports the contention of the relators that upon the accept ance of the registrars resignations the only vacancy contemplated by Section 661 did not occur.
 "The respondents rely for the support of their claims upon the recently revised charter of the city of Waterbury, Special Acts of 1o3s, page 564, especially Section 25 which provides that any vacancy in any elective office, other than that of mayor, shall be filled ty appointment by the mayor for the unexpired portion of the term
 "When the general assembly had the 1893 Waterbury charter under consid iteration, 1t, without doubt, Intended that for such possible reg istrar vacancy as 1t is defined, the power of appointment in Water bury would be transferred from the selectmen and town clerk tc the mayor of the city, but there Is nothing of substance in the 1888 charter that evidences any intcn. ton on the part of the general assembly to extend the possibility of q registrar vacancy beyond that so clearly defined by the statute quoted.
 Tt thus appears that in appoint ing the respondents, the mayor oi Waterbury acted without legal sanction and that they now usirp the offices.
 ''In each case judgment of custer will be entered; and that the re- lator recover his costs. PEASLEY, Judge" l