In re Rowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rowe

192 A.D. 4, 182 N.Y.S. 216, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7424

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 12, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D. 4 (In re Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Rowe, 192 A.D. 4, 182 N.Y.S. 216, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We think the decision of the trial justice was clearly right in regard to the ballots Exhibits 1 and 3. In fact, the decision in regard to those two ballots is not seriously questioned here. On ballot Exhibit 2 the voter made a cross mark before the name of Olive Ridgeway, a candidate for the office of town clerk. The voter also wrote in a name in the proper [5]*5place to vote for a person whose name did not appear on the ballot as a candidate for that office. The ballot shows upon its face, therefore, that the voter had attempted to vote for two persons for the office of town clerk: First, by placing a cross mark before the name of Olive Ridgeway; and, second, by writing in the name of a person in the proper place. The question is whether that made the whole ballot void or whether it made the ballot void only as to the office of town clerk. The Special Term has held that the ballot was valid except that the vote could not be counted for town clerk. We are satisfied that the proper conclusion was reached at Special Term.

All concur, except De Angelis and Hubbs, JJ., not voting.

Oder affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam:

We think the decision of the trial justice was clearly right in regard to the ballots Exhibits 1 and 3. In fact, the decision in regard to those two ballots is not seriously questioned here. On ballot Exhibit 2 the voter made a cross mark before the name of Olive Ridgeway, a candidate for the office of town clerk. The voter also wrote in a name in the proper [5]*5place to vote for a person whose name did not appear on the ballot as a candidate for that office. The ballot shows upon its face, therefore, that the voter had attempted to vote for two persons for the office of town clerk: First, by placing a cross mark before the name of Olive Ridgeway; and, second, by writing in the name of a person in the proper place. The question is whether that made the whole ballot void or whether it made the ballot void only as to the office of town clerk. The Special Term has held that the ballot was valid except that the vote could not be counted for town clerk. We are satisfied that the proper conclusion was reached at Special Term.

All concur, except De Angelis and Hubbs, JJ., not voting.

Oder affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D. 4, 182 N.Y.S. 216, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rowe-nyappdiv-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack