Case Name: CHARLES H. KERN, RESPONDENT, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF PALMYRA, IN THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, ALBERT N. STEWART, CLERK OF SAID TOWNSHIP, AND THE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1919-11-17
Citations: 93 N.J.L. 468
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES H. KERN, RESPONDENT, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF PALMYRA, IN THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, ALBERT N. STEWART, CLERK OF SAID TOWNSHIP, AND THE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
CHARLES H. KERN, RESPONDENT, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF PALMYRA, IN THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, ALBERT N. STEWART, CLERK OF SAID TOWNSHIP, AND THE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, APPELLANTS.
Argued June 24, 1919
Decided November 17, 1919.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“This is a local op-tipn case; -among the grounds advanced for setting aside the election is the failure to comply with the Soldiers’ Vote act. We have first considered this at some length in Scheible v. Hightstown, opinion filed herewith, and for the reasons given in that opinion the election under review, so far as it relates to the local option vote-, will be set aside, but without costs.
“Other reasons are assigned, such as failure to advertise the council meeting properly, considered by us in the Bullock case, and failure of the township committee to examine the petition and signatures themselves. See Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Jersey City, 81 N. J. L. 290. As to these it is claimed prosecutor is barred by assent and laches. It is unnecessary to go into either question, as the soldier vote matter is controlling and the previous conduct of prosecutor cannot be invoked' against that.”
For the appellants, Arnold J. Becheniach.
For the respondent, I-Iarry Heher..

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.