Case Name: The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. Henry B. McKenzie et al.; The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. Robert H. Fairbrother et al.; The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. The Board of County Canvassers of Ulster County
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-12-08
Citations: 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 527
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. Henry B. McKenzie et al. The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. Robert H. Fairbrother et al. The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. The Board of County Canvassers of Ulster County.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 49
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. Henry B. McKenzie et al. The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. Robert H. Fairbrother et al. The People ex rel. George H. Bush v. The Board of County Canvassers of Ulster County.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed December 8, 1892.)
1. Elections—Marked ballots—Mandamus.
It is only where an inspector of election or other election officer or duly authorized watcher has, during or immediately after the completion of the canvass, declared his belief that certain ballots were marked for identification, that a peremptory mandamus can be granted to compel the attaching of such ballots to the certificate or statement of the canvass.
2. Mandamus—Alternative.
Where the relator does not ask for an alternative mandamus, but proceeds with his argument on the opposing affidavits, he cannot afterwardscomplain that the court did not award an alternative mandamus.
Appeal from order denying applications for mandamus.
It was claimed that certain ballots cast in the town of Esopus, Ulster county, at the general election of 1892, were marked for identification, and the mandamus was asked to compel their attachment to the statement of canvass of votes.
Linson. & Van Buren (J. Newton Fiero, of counsel), for relator; John J. Cloonan, for board of canvassers; G. D. B. Hasbrouck, Charles F.. Cantine and Severyn B. Sharpe, for def’ts.
Affirming 48 St. Rep., 791.

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