Home/Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court/Morgan

Morgan

1 Rep. Cont. Elect. Case. 87
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 19, 1896
DocketHouse Document, No. 906
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Rep. Cont. Elect. Case. 87 (Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morgan, 1 Rep. Cont. Elect. Case. 87 (Mass. 1896).

Opinions

The Committee bn Elections, to- whom was referred the petition of William H. Morgan that he may be declared to be a duly elected member of the House of Representatives for the twenty-second Suffolk district, which is composed of ward 22, Boston, submit the following report: —

The above petition was received and referred to the committee Jan. 24, 1896. It alleged in substance that a mistake had been made in the count.

A petition of Frederick Bleiler, in substance alleging the same as the petition now in question, asking that he may be declared a duly elected member of the House of Representatives for said district, was referred to your committee Jan. 8, 1896 ; and as both petitions involved the same question, the committee acted upon them simultaneously.

[88]*88The committee gave a hearing on said petitions Jan. 27 and Jan. 28, 1896, at which hearing the committee made a recount of the ballots cast in the district.

Another candidate, besides the said petitioners, for representative in said district, was James T¡ Brickley.

According to the official returns, the vote for representative on a recount by the Board of Election Commissioners of the city of Boston was as follows : —

Bleiler, 1,434; Brickley, 146; Morgan, 1,434.

The powers of the House and of this committee are conferred by the Constitution of the Commonwealth, chapter 1, section 3, article 10, which provides that the House of Representatives shall be the judge of the returns, election and qualification of its own members as pointed out in the Constitution.

Upon the recount by the committee, eight ballots were contested by counsel, but objection was afterwards waived as to three ballots, leaving five for the consideration of your committee.

The committee were unanimous in counting all except one ballot, cast in precinct 10, which if allowed for Bleiler, as claimed by his counsel, would make the result a tie; the vote, without counting said ballot, being as follows: —

Bleiler, 1,438; Morgan, 1,439.

The petitioner contended that this ballot should be thrown out, on the ground that it was defective.

The result of the vote in the block of fifty in which this ballot was found would be unchanged by your committee’s count if. this ballot were thrown out, the count of the Board of Election Commissioners being: Bleiler, 40; Brickley, 1; Morgan, 5, and 4 blank or defective ; while that of the committee was : Bleiler, 40; Brickley, 1; Morgan, 5; blank or defective 3, with said ballot in question.

In voting for the candidates for the various offices in said ballot, except in that of sheriff, where he did not vote, and in that of representative, the voter had done so by placing a well-defined cross in the square at the right of the names to be voted for, voting in every instance for the candidate of the Democratic party. In that part of the ballot where the names of candidates for representative in the General Court were placed, above the spaces prescribed for the candidates’ names, and directly beneath the words “ mark one,” there appeared a cross, no part of which was included by the parallel lines within which the names of the candidates appear.

The first name in order on the ballot of the candidates for representative was that of Frederick Bleiler, and was the nearest to the cross.

[89]*89The following is a fac-simile of the part of the ballot in question : —

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

Related

People Ex Rel. Hasbrouck v. Board of Supervisors
32 N.E. 242 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
People Ex Rel. Hirsh v. . Wood
42 N.E. 536 (New York Court of Appeals, 1895)
People Ex Rel. Nichols v. Board of County Canvassers
29 N.E. 327 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
People Ex Rel. Bradley v. . Shaw
31 N.E. 512 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Curran v. Clayton
29 A. 930 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1893)
Rutledge v. Crawford
27 P. 779 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Lay v. Parsons
38 P. 447 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Parker v. Orr
30 L.R.A. 227 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)
Lindstrom v. Board of Canvassers
19 L.R.A. 171 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Johnson v. Board of Canvassers
59 N.W. 412 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)
Attorney General ex rel. Scott v. Glaser
61 N.W. 648 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)
Pennington v. Hare
62 N.W. 116 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1895)
Pennington v. Thomason
1 Thompson 37 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1849)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Rep. Cont. Elect. Case. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-mass-1896.