Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. NARROW v. MEIN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-11-13
Citations: 72 N.Y.S. 479
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. NARROW v. MEIN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 72
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
PEOPLE ex rel. NARROW v. MEIN et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 13, 1901.)
Local Option—Canvassing Boabd—Mandamus.
Mandamus will not lie to compel the board of canvassers on a local option election, under Laws 1900, c. 367, § 16, to reconvene to recanvass the votes, and declare said votes illegal, because of the clerk’s failure to publish the required notice that local option would be voted on.
Appeal from special term, St. Lawrence county.
Mandamus by the people, on the relation of Frederick Narrow, against William J. Mein and others. From an order granting the writ, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
At a town meeting held in the town of Norfolk, St. Lawrence county, February 12, 1901, votes were taken upon the four local option propositions under the liquor tax law. These votes were canvassed by the board of canvassers, and the result declared. The application made was for a writ of mandamus to compel the said board of canvassers to reconvene, to recanvass the votes cast upon said propositions, and declare said votes illegal and void, and to file a certificate with the county treasurer of said county to the effect that no election was had in said town on said propositions, for the reason that the town clerk of said town did not print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, in a newspaper, the notice, or any notice, required to be published by him, in accordance with section 16 of the liquor tax law. The special term ordered the issuance of the writ, and from said order and judgment entered thereupon this appeal is taken.
. Argued before PARKER, P. J., and KELLOGG, EDWARDS, SMll'H, and CHASE, JJ.
Ledyard P. Hale, for appellants.
Ginn & Murphy (L. E. Ginn, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The questions upon this appeal seem to have been decided adversely to the respondent's contention in Re O'Hara, 63 App. Div. 512, 71 N. Y. Supp. 613. With the reasoning oí the learned justices in that decision we entirely agree. The order and judgments appealed from should therefore be reversed, with costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.
Judgment and order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and application denied, with $10 costs.