In re Hart

New York Supreme Court

In re Hart

25 Misc. 93, 53 N.Y.S. 1071

DecidedOctober 15, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Misc. 93 (In re Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hart, 25 Misc. 93, 53 N.Y.S. 1071 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor J.:

The Election Law is that if the board of inspectors at any meeting for registration “ shall have neglected or refused ” to register a person who is entitled to be registered, (i. e. registered by them), application may be made to this court, or to a judge, to have his name registered, whereupon the said court or judge may require such board of inspectors to convene on the second Saturday before the election and register such person; and then it is added for emphasis that such an order shall not be made unless the name of such person shall have been omitted “ through the fault, error or negligence of the election officers,” i. e. of the district where such person is entitled to be registered. The said officers never neglected or refused to register the applicant, he never having presented himself before them f.or registration. It is through his own negligence that he is not registered, concurred in by the inspectors of the wrong district where he is registered.

The application is denied.

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

Gaynor J.:

The Election Law is that if the board of inspectors at any meeting for registration “ shall have neglected or refused ” to register a person who is entitled to be registered, (i. e. registered by them), application may be made to this court, or to a judge, to have his name registered, whereupon the said court or judge may require such board of inspectors to convene on the second Saturday before the election and register such person; and then it is added for emphasis that such an order shall not be made unless the name of such person shall have been omitted “ through the fault, error or negligence of the election officers,” i. e. of the district where such person is entitled to be registered. The said officers never neglected or refused to register the applicant, he never having presented himself before them f.or registration. It is through his own negligence that he is not registered, concurred in by the inspectors of the wrong district where he is registered.

The application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Misc. 93, 53 N.Y.S. 1071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hart-nysupct-1898.