Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF THOMAS F. X. SMITH, MUNICIPAL CLERK OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY IN RE: SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANCIS X. HAYES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; ANTHONY CARBONE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE F. KUGLER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1971-09-13
Citations: 59 N.J. 236
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF THOMAS F. X. SMITH, MUNICIPAL CLERK OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY IN RE: SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANCIS X. HAYES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ANTHONY CARBONE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE F. KUGLER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 236–238

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF THOMAS F. X. SMITH, MUNICIPAL CLERK OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY IN RE: SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANCIS X. HAYES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ANTHONY CARBONE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE F. KUGLER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued September 13, 1971
Decided September 13, 1971.
Mr. Francis X. Hayes argued the cause pro se.
Mr. Louis P. Caroselli, Second Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent, Smith (Mr. James F. Ryan, Corporation Counsel, attorney).
Mr. Arnold Jay Gold argued the cause for appellant, Carbone.
Mr. Alfred L. Nardelli, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent, Attorney General (Mr. George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General; Mr. Stephen Slcillman, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief).

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam
These are election matters and because of the inherent time limitations, we heard argument on petitions for certification as if they had been granted. Certification is granted and the matters remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
The single question is whether N. J. S. A. 19:13-7 is arbitrary in its request that the signatures on a nominating petition shall be supported by the affidavits of 5 of the signers that they "saw all the signatures made thereto." No criticism is levelled against the requirement for verification as such but it is insisted that to demand five such affiants serves no public purpose and is therefore unwarranted. We agree. The legitimate statutory objective may be met by a single verification, and the statute will be construed to require such verification and no more. This result brings the statute into harmony with other statutory provisions dealing with the verification of nominating petitions.
Mr. Justice Mountain votes to affirm for the reasons expressed in the opinions of the Appellate Division in these matters. (Smith v. Hayes, 116 N. J. Super. 133, 1971; Carbone v. Kugler, 116 N. J. Super. 130, 1971).
For remandment—Chief Justice Weintbaub and Justices Jacobs, Ebanois, Pboctob, Hall and Schettino—6.
For affirmance—Justice Mountain—1.