Case Name: In the Matter of the Objections to the Petitions of Electors of the Town of Newburgh, in the County of Orange, N. Y., Requesting the Submission of the Questions under the Local Option Provisions of the Liquor Tax Law of the State of New York, at the Election to be Held on the 3d Day of November, 1903, in Said Town
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-10
Citations: 3 Liquor Tax Rep. 443
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Objections to the Petitions of Electors of the Town of Newburgh, in the County of Orange, N. Y., Requesting the Submission of the Questions under the Local Option Provisions of the Liquor Tax Law of the State of New York, at the Election to be Held on the 3d Day of November, 1903, in Said Town.
Judges: 
Reporter: Liquor Tax Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 443–447

Head Matter:
Second Appellate Department,
October Term, 1904.
Reported. 97 App. Div. 438.
In the Matter of the Objections to the Petitions of Electors of the Town of Newburgh, in the County of Orange, N. Y., Requesting the Submission of the Questions under the Local Option Provisions of the Liquor Tax Law of the State of New York, at the Election to be Held on the 3d Day of November, 1903, in Said Town.
Summary application to determine the sufficiency of a petition for the submission of local option questions—Neither the Supreme Court nor a justice thereof may entertain it—Presumption in favor of the town clerk’s decision as to its sufficiency—An injunction suit by a taxpayer, distinguished.
Neither the Supreme Court, nor a justice thereof, has jurisdiction, under sections 56 and 65 of the Election Law, to entertain a summary proceeding to determine the sufficiency of a petition filed with the town clerk requesting the submission of the local option questions to the electors of the town.
Semble, that it would be different in an injunction suit brought by a taxpayer to restrain action by a town clerk.
Semble, (per Hooker, J.), that where the town clerk treats the petition as sufficient, it will be presumed that it was signed by ten per cent, of the electors of the town as required by section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law, although the petition does not state any facts from which such percentage may be calculated: The burden of showing that the petition was not signed by the requisite number of electors rests upon the party attacking the petition on this ground.
Charles H. Flynn and Samuel C. Whitlow, Objecting Petitioners, Appellants; J. D. Billingsly and Others, Petitioners, Respondents.
Appeal by the petitioners, Charles H. Flynn and another, from an order of the 'Supreme Court, made at the Queens County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 10th day of November, 1903, denying the petitioners’ motion to have set aside and declared invalid certain petitions theretofore filed with the town clerk of the town of Newburgh relative to the submission of the local option questions, under the Liquor Tax Lav/ of the State of New York, in said town of Newburgh, and denying a motion to have the said town clerk restrained from printing or causing to be printed the ballots for the submission of said questions .and from submitting the same.
Henry Kohl, for the appellants.
J. Bemoiok Thompson, Jr., for the respondents.

Opinion:
Willard Bartlett, J.:
I think we ought to dismiss this appeal. The proceeding appears to have been instituted by a petition and affidavit upon which an order was granted returnable before a Special Term of the Supreme Court, requiring the town clerk of the town of Newburgh to show cause why certain petitions filed with him relative to the submission of certain local option questions under the Liquor Tax Law should not be declared invalid, and why the same should not be set aside, and why he should not be restrained from printing ballots for the submission of the questions aforesaid. The application ivas of a summary nature, and it appears to have been supposed that there was jurisdiction to entertain it either on the part of the Supreme Court or a justice thereof, under sections 56 and 65 of the Election Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 909, as amd. by Laws of 1901, chap. 654). An examination of these sections, however, shows that they have no reference whatever to petitions or other proceedings under the Liquor Tax Law, but that they relate solely to certificates of nomination under the provisions of the Election Law. The attempt to bring questions concerning the local option provisions of the Liquor Tax Law before the court by a summary proceeding under sections 56 and 65 of the Election Law appears to me to have been wholly without authority. The court below, therefore, possessed no jurisdiction to pass one way or the other upon the sufficiency of the petitions. It would have been different in an injunction suit by a taxpayer to restrain action by the town clerk; but such was not the nature of this proceeding. Inasmuch as the court at Special Term possessed no jurisdiction, I think the proper course for this court is neither to affirm nor reverse its decision, but to dismiss the appeal.
All concurred (Hooker, J., in separate memorandum).