Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY CANVASSERS OF ULSTER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. HENRY E. McKENZIE and Others, Respondents; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. ROBERT H. FAIRBROTHER and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11
Citations: 73 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 265
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY CANVASSERS OF ULSTER COUNTY, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. HENRY E. McKENZIE and Others, Respondents. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. ROBERT H. FAIRBROTHER and Others, Respondents.
Judges: Herrick, L, not acting.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 73
Pages: 265–273

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY CANVASSERS OF ULSTER COUNTY, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. HENRY E. McKENZIE and Others, Respondents. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. GEORGE H. BUSH, Appellant, v. ROBERT H. FAIRBROTHER and Others, Respondents.
Elections — ballots — objection to, as ma/i'kedfor identification — mandamus.
A peremptory writ of mandamus should, not issue, under section 81 of chapter 363 of the Laws of 1890, as amended by chapter 396 of the Laws of 1891 (an act “ to promote the independence of voters at public elections,” etc.), where it does not affirmatively appear that an inspector of election, or other election officer or duly authorized watcher, during the canvassing of the votes, or immediately after the completion thereof, declared his belief that the ballots objected to, on the motion for such writ, were marked for the purpose of identification.
Although a proceeding, under said section, in which the facts, whether objection was made to certain marked ballots at the time of the canvass, or, if not made, whether the marked ballots were voted, and, if voted, whether they were marked for identification, are disputed, might call for the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus, if applied for, yet such relief cannot be granted where the application is for a peremptory writ.
The argument by the relator, on a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus, of questions raised by conflicting affidavits, is in the nature of a demurrer to the legal sufficiency of the opposing proof, and an alternative writ will not then issue.
Where ballots cast at an election and which should have been destroyed, no objection having been made to them as marked for identification, have been preserved in violation of law, and have been, since the completion of the canvass, out of the possession of the election officers and exposed to the risk of being tampered with, they should not thereafter be allowed to be attached to the statement of the canvass.
Where it appears that ballots cast at an election were not marked during the canvass or immediately thereafter, as objected to because marked for identification, or with words in substance to that effect, as required by the statute, neither the board of inspectors, nor a member thereof with its permission, can thereafter attach to the statement of the canvass theretofore filed with the board of canvassers ballots alleged to have been marked for identification, and indorse thereon that they were returned, as objected to because marked for identification; and ballots, so attached to the statement of the result of the canvass after the statement was originally filed, must be removed therefrom before such statement is canvassed by the board of county canvassers.
Appeals by the relator, George H. Bush, from three several orders made at a Special Term of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Ulster on the 25th day of November, 1892, which orders denied his motions for writs of peremptory mandamus in one case against the Board of County Canvassers of Ulster County, in another against the Board of Election Inspectors of District Number One, and in the other against the Board of Election Inspectors of District Number Two of the Town of Esopus, Ulster County, respectively, except that portion of such orders staying said board of canvassers, and staying proceedings under said order.
Section 31 of chapter 262 of the Laws of 1890, entitled “An act to promote the independence of voters at public elections, enforce the secrecy of the ballot, and provide for the printing and distribution of ballots at public expense,” as amended by chapter 296 of Laws of 1891, is as follows:
“ The votes for the several candidates shall be canvassed in the order in which they appear upon the several ballots. No ballot that has not the printed official indorsement shall be counted, except such as are voted in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-one of this act. All ballots that are defective in whole or in part shall be marked ‘ defective,’ and shall be preserved and filed as provided for in section twentv-seven of this act. When an inspector of election or other election officer or duly authorized watcher shall, during a canvass of the votes, or immediately after the completion thereof, declare his belief that any particular ballot or paster affixed thereto has been written upon or marked in any way with the intent that the same may be identified, the inspectors ■ shall write their names on the back thereof and attach it to the original certificate of canvass, and include in said certificate a statement of the specific grounds upon which the validity of such ballot is questioned. When the votes are to be estimated and the result declared by a board of county canvassers or other officers performing similar duties, such board or officers shall mention separately in the statement or certificate of canvass the number of votes thus questioned which were cast for each candidate, and the specific grounds upon which the same are claimed to be invalid as set forth in the original certificate of canvass. Such ballots shall be counted in estimating the result of an election; but within thirty days after the filing of the certificate declaring such result a writ of mandamus may issue out of the Supreme Court against the board of canvassers, or officers acting as such board, by whom the ballots were counted, upon the application cf any candidate voted for at the election to require a recount of the votes, and all questions relating to the validity of such ballots, and as to whether they were properly counted shall be determined in such proceeding. All such ballots shall be preserved for at least one year, and until the questions raised by such writ shall be finally determined. Election boards and boards of canvassers shall be continued in existence for the purposes of such proceedings.”
J. Newton Fiero, for the relator.
John J. Glooncm, for board of canvassers.
Q. B. B. Ilasbrouck, Charles F. Gantine and Severyn B. Sharpe, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Putnam, J.:
The order should be affirmed on the opinion of the court below. The relator was not entitled to an alternative writ of mandamus. (People ex rel. Hartford L. Ins. Co. v. Fairman, 91 N. Y., 387.)
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing.