O'Connell v. Mathews

59 N.E. 195, 177 Mass. 518, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 688
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 7, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 59 N.E. 195 (O'Connell v. Mathews) 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
O'Connell v. Mathews, 59 N.E. 195, 177 Mass. 518, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 688 (Mass. 1901).

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

If it be assumed that mandamus will lie and that the questions argued are open, the decisions of the board of registrars were right. Apart from evidence the form and appearance of the three ballots at least warranted the board in assuming than the ballots were official within § 1 of the statute. If official ballots, they were not forbidden to be counted by the words of the statute. It is true that § 230 prohibits ballots like these being deposited in the box, but this is not equivalent to prohibiting their being counted in case they are deposited without remark. If not allowed to be deposited, the voter could get a perfect ballot and cast his vote. If allowed to be deposited and not counted, the voter is disfranchised. The latter result is not to be admitted without very clear words, and such words would raise a constitutional question which we do not decide.

As to the seventeen ballots with crosses against blanks, the statute clearly intends that the cross shall be against the space for which it counts, §§ 194, 224. The physical arrangement of the ballots bears an unmistakable meaning and, whatever may be conjectured in cases like this, it is impossible to treat the crosses as if they had been put in a different square.

Petitions dismissed.

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

Related

Moore v. Election Commissioners
35 N.E.2d 222 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Waters v. Heaton
4 N.E.2d 41 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1936)
Coughlin v. Election Commission
2 N.E.2d 461 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Swift v. Board of Registrars of Voters
183 N.E. 730 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Talbot v. Board of Registrars of Voters
183 N.E. 735 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Thompson v. Boling
42 S.W.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Gillaspie v. McKinney
24 S.W.2d 764 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Parrott v. Plunkett
167 N.E. 329 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
O'Brien v. Board of Election Commissioners
153 N.E. 553 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Andrews v. Board of Registrars of Voters
246 Mass. 572 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Beauchemin v. Flagg
229 Mass. 23 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Ray v. Registrars of Voters
221 Mass. 223 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Capper v. Stotler
128 P. 200 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Attorney-General Ex Rel. West v. Bartlett
74 A. 877 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1909)
Cheney v. Coughlin
87 N.E. 744 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Finlay v. City of Boston
82 N.E. 5 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Brewster v. Sherman
80 N.E. 821 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Flanders v. Roberts
65 N.E. 902 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Commonwealth v. Rogers
63 N.E. 421 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Wheeler v. Carter
62 N.E. 471 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 N.E. 195, 177 Mass. 518, 1901 Mass. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnell-v-mathews-mass-1901.