Watertown

Massachusetts House of Representatives

Watertown

1 Rep. Cont. El. 36

CourtMassachusetts House of Representatives

DecidedJuly 1, 1795

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Rep. Cont. El. 36 (Watertown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts House of Representatives primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watertown, 1 Rep. Cont. El. 36 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1795).

Pincite

Opinion

The electioa of William Hunt, returned a member from the town of Watertown, was controverted by .Richard Clark and others, on the ground, that the meeting at which he was elected was not duly notified, and also, that persons were illegally admitted to vote in the election. The petition,¹ and also a memorial of Marshall Spring and others,² in favor of the member, were referred to a committee of five, who made a report,³ declaring that his seat ought to be vacated, which report was rejected. The petitioners presented a second petition,⁴ in which they reiterated the- charges contained in the former, and alleged further, that Mr. Hunt was not eligible as a member, “ by reason of the public censure passed upon him at the last session of the general court, wherein he was impeached for corrupt and wilful misconduct as a magistrate, and found guilty.”

This second petition was referred to Messrs. Bancroft, Ely, and Bodman, who made a report,⁵ requesting a decision of the question, whether a summons should issue, to bring witnesses on a subject already determined by the house :⁶ and the question being taken, it passed in the negative. It was then moved, that the petitioners have leave to withdraw their petition, which motion was taken by yeas and nays, and determined in the negative, yeas 44, nays 50. The petition was then recommitted, and Messrs. Carr and Sproat were added to the committee. The vote on the subject of summoning witnesses was thereupon reconsidered, and the clerk was directed to issue a summons accordingly.

[37]*37The committee subsequently reported an order of notice to the town of Watertown, to appear on the first Tuesday of the next session, (if they should see cause,) to contest the allegations contained in the petition; which report was agreed to and the order passed.¹ [It does not appear that any further proceedings were had in the case, or that either party came forward at the next session.]

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

The electioa of William Hunt, returned a member from the town of Watertown, was controverted by .Richard Clark and others, on the ground, that the meeting at which he was elected was not duly notified, and also, that persons were illegally admitted to vote in the election. The petition,¹ and also a memorial of Marshall Spring and others,² in favor of the member, were referred to a committee of five, who made a report,³ declaring that his seat ought to be vacated, which report was rejected. The petitioners presented a second petition,⁴ in which they reiterated the- charges contained in the former, and alleged further, that Mr. Hunt was not eligible as a member, “ by reason of the public censure passed upon him at the last session of the general court, wherein he was impeached for corrupt and wilful misconduct as a magistrate, and found guilty.”

This second petition was referred to Messrs. Bancroft, Ely, and Bodman, who made a report,⁵ requesting a decision of the question, whether a summons should issue, to bring witnesses on a subject already determined by the house :⁶ and the question being taken, it passed in the negative. It was then moved, that the petitioners have leave to withdraw their petition, which motion was taken by yeas and nays, and determined in the negative, yeas 44, nays 50. The petition was then recommitted, and Messrs. Carr and Sproat were added to the committee. The vote on the subject of summoning witnesses was thereupon reconsidered, and the clerk was directed to issue a summons accordingly.

[37]*37The committee subsequently reported an order of notice to the town of Watertown, to appear on the first Tuesday of the next session, (if they should see cause,) to contest the allegations contained in the petition; which report was agreed to and the order passed.¹ [It does not appear that any further proceedings were had in the case, or that either party came forward at the next session.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Rep. Cont. El. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watertown-masshserep-1795.