Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/323/323mass346.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:32:12+00:00

Document:
MARY E. GILLIGAN vs. REGISTRARS OF VOTERS OF WILMINGTON.
Present: QUA, C.J., LUMMUS, DOLAN, WILKINS, & WILLIAMS, JJ.
Upon an appeal under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 213, Section 1D, inserted by St. 1943, c. 374, Section 4, from a judgment in a mandamus case, with a report of the material facts but without a report of the evidence, documentary exhibits annexed to the record but not incorporated therein by the trial judge by reference or otherwise must be disregarded by this court.
Voluntary findings by the trial judge of all the facts necessary to determine the issue involved in a mandamus case should be treated as a "report of material facts" upon an appeal from a judgment under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 213, Section 1D, inserted by St. 1943, c. 374, Section 4.
If a voter substantially complies with the election statute and so marks his ballot that it indicates with reasonable certainty the candidate for whom he intends to vote, his ballot must be counted in accordance with that intent notwithstanding that the mark made by him is not a cross.
Upon a report of material facts, without a report of the evidence, on an appeal under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 213, Section 1D, inserted by St. 1943, c. 374, Section 4, from a judgment in a mandamus case respecting a contested election, this court could not say that the trial judge was in error in finding that three voters intended to vote for the petitioner by ballots which were in evidence before him but were not before this court, where he also found that on one of the ballots there was marked a cross in the box opposite the petitioner's name and a diagonal line in the box opposite the name of the opposing candidate, that on another of the ballots there was marked a diagonal line in the box opposite the petitioner's name, and that on the third ballot there was "marked . . . a diagonal line crossed by two intersecting lines."
PETITION for a writ of mandamus, filed in the Superior Court on March 17, 1948.
The case was heard by Dowd, J.
F. H. Magison, for Farrell.
M. Singer & N. Learner, for the petitioner.
Marion V. Farrell . . . . 703."
Judgment was entered ordering the respondents to count these three ballots for the petitioner and to declare her elected town clerk by a vote of seven hundred five to seven hundred three. An appeal to this court was taken by Marion V. Farrell.
Copies of three ballots with the marking thereon are annexed to the record. We agree with the contention of the petitioner that these copies should be disregarded because the trial judge in his findings did not incorporate any exhibits by reference or otherwise, and rule that they are not properly before us. Yoffa v. National Shawmut Bank, 288 Mass. 422, 426. Gordon v. Guernsey, 316 Mass. 106, 108. We may add, however, that the consideration of them as exhibits would not have changed the final result which we have reached.
By G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 213, Section 1D, inserted by St. 1943, c. 374, Section 4, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, Sections 19, 22-28, inclusive, relating to appeals in equity suits, are made applicable to mandamus proceedings. See Lawrence v. Commissioners of Public Works, 319 Mass. 700, 702. Section 23, as appearing in St. 1947, c. 365, Section 2, provides for a "report of material facts." Here the judge's findings were made voluntarily and were not stated to be such a report; but as they apparently include all facts necessary for the determination of the issue concerning the ballots they should be construed as equivalent to the "complete report of `the material facts' contemplated by the statute." Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, 301 Mass. 559, 562. So considered they must stand, the evidence not having been reported.

References: V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.