In Re Budlong

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

In Re Budlong

5 A. 77, 15 R.I. 332, 1886 R.I. LEXIS 29

DecidedJune 19, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A. 77 (In Re Budlong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Budlong, 5 A. 77, 15 R.I. 332, 1886 R.I. LEXIS 29 (R.I. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjbiam.

The court is of the opinion that J. Titus Andrews and Eleazer Tandy were not legally elected first and third councilmen respectively of the town of Cranston, June 7, 1886, first, because the special act in relation to the election prescribes that it shall be by ballot, either written or printed, and the vote by which the said Andrews and Tandy claim to have been elected was vivá voce ; second, because said act makes no provision for a reopening of the polls on the day of the election in case of a failure to elect. If the town has power to hold a new election, it must hold it by adjournment from day to day, under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 35, § 3, which provides: —

' “ If, on the day of annual election of town officers, any town shall fail to make an election of town clerk, town council, justices of the peace, or town treasurer, the meeting may be adjourned for the purpose of completing the election of those officers, but of no others, from day to day, not exceeding three days beyond the first day of meeting.” —

The polls to be kept open for the new election from 9 o’clock A. M. to 5.30 P. M., and the votes to be by ballot, printed or written.

We are of the opinion that James A. Budlong and Phineas A. Conley hold over as first and third councilmen respectively, under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 37, § 22. Order accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Ctjbiam.

The court is of the opinion that J. Titus Andrews and Eleazer Tandy were not legally elected first and third councilmen respectively of the town of Cranston, June 7, 1886, first, because the special act in relation to the election prescribes that it shall be by ballot, either written or printed, and the vote by which the said Andrews and Tandy claim to have been elected was vivá voce ; second, because said act makes no provision for a reopening of the polls on the day of the election in case of a failure to elect. If the town has power to hold a new election, it must hold it by adjournment from day to day, under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 35, § 3, which provides: —

' “ If, on the day of annual election of town officers, any town shall fail to make an election of town clerk, town council, justices of the peace, or town treasurer, the meeting may be adjourned for the purpose of completing the election of those officers, but of no others, from day to day, not exceeding three days beyond the first day of meeting.” —

The polls to be kept open for the new election from 9 o’clock A. M. to 5.30 P. M., and the votes to be by ballot, printed or written.

We are of the opinion that James A. Budlong and Phineas A. Conley hold over as first and third councilmen respectively, under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 37, § 22. Order accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A. 77, 15 R.I. 332, 1886 R.I. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-budlong-ri-1886.