Case Name: In re HART
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-10
Citations: 53 N.Y.S. 1071
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re HART.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 53
Pages: 1071–1072

Head Matter:
In re HART.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.
October, 1898.)
Elections—Action to Compel Registration.
One who, by mistake, applied for registration and was registered in the wrong election district, has no right of action under Election Law, § 31, providing that, if the board of electors shall have neglected or refused to register a person entitled to be registered, application may be made to the court, whereupon said court may require the board to convene and register such person, but that such order shall not be made unless the name of such person shall have been omitted “through the fault, error, or negligence of the election officers."
Joshua W. Hart applied for registration and was registered by mistake in the Fifteenth election district of the Twentieth ward of the borough of Brooklyn, whereas he should have been registered in the Fourteenth district. The time for registration having expired, he applied to this court, under section 31 of the election law, for an order requiring the inspectors of the said Fourteenth district to meet and register him.
Application denied.
A. H. Koehler, for the motion.
W. J. Carr, opposed.

Opinion:
GAY270K, J.
The election law is that if the board of inspectors at any meeting for registration "shall have neglected or refused" to register a person who is entitled to be registered (i. e. registered by them), application may be made to this court, or to a judge, to have his name registered, whereupon the said court or judge may require such board of inspectors to convene on the second Saturday before the election and register such person; and then it is added for emphasis that such an order shall not be made unless the name of such person shall have been omitted "through the fault, error or negligence of the election officers," i. e. of the district where such person is entitled to be registered. Section 31. The said officers never neglected or refused to register the applicant, he never having presented himself before them for registration. It is through his own negligence that he is not registered, concurred in by the inspectors of the wrong district where he is registered.
The application is denied.