148 Misc. 42 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1933
As this application, designed to establish the results of a village election, is submitted for decision, learned savants release the disturbing information that the average of rural intelligence is below that of the urban centers. (See Proceedings of American Eugenics Society, May 13, 1933.) The law, with a nice respect for the feelings of bucolic voters, recognizes no such distinction and hence the validity of a ballot cast in a village election is determined by the same tests that are applied to those cast by the supermen of the metropolitan area. (Election Law, §§ 100, 190; People ex rel. March v. Beam, 117 App. Div. 374; modfd., 188 N. Y. 266.) This failure of the lawmakers to keep step with the real or imaginary discoveries of the advocates of selective breeding of the human species, operates to the disadvantage of plaintiffs, as will shortly appear.
Oyster Bay Cove is one of the innumerable sequestered hamlets in Nassau county. It was incorporated as a village a few years ago for the purpose, among others, of protecting the inhabitants and their estates from the depredations of the city-bred intelligentsia who descend in force on each warm Sabbath day with their cultural impedimenta of comic supplements, lunch boxes and pop bottles. Until the happening of the events now about to be narrated, the
Citizens Association Candidates.
For Mayor, George T. Bowdoin................... 14 votes
For Trustee, Grover O’Neill....................... 12 votes
For Trustee, John E. Rousmaniere................. 13 votes
Independent Candidates.
For Mayor, Henry T. Dollard..................... 4 votes
For Trustee, William J. Watson................... 6 votes
For Trustee, Wilhelmina Estberg.................. 5 votes
Void ballots, 15.
It is evident from an inspection of the ballots that the vote was erroneously canvassed. Ballot No. 1 contains a superfluous cross
Ballots Nos. 24, 28, 30, 31, 32 and 33 are void because the written names of the independent candidates appear in places other than the blanks provided therefor and also because of other written matter appearing on said ballots. (Election Law, § 219.)
Nine ballots, viz., Nos. 19 to 23, both inclusive, and Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 29, stand upon a different footing. Upon each of these the voter placed a superfluous cross in what would normally be the voting column and opposite written in names. This did not invalidate the ballots. (People ex rel. Simons v. Knickerbocker, 225 App. Div. 212; affd., 250 N. Y. 594; Matter of Garvin, 168 App. Div. 218.) Moreover, the failure of the election officials to block out the space in the voting column, in the manner illustrated in section 105 of the Election Law, laid a trap for the unwary and constituted at least an implied invitation to voters to mark the unnecessary crosses. These ballots should be counted.
Other errors, not involving the validity of ballots, appear in the count and tabulation of the inspectors.
The corrected figures are as follows:
For Mayor:
George T. Bowdoin.............................. 14 votes
Henry T. Dollard................................ 12 votes
For Trustees:
William J. Watson............................... 13 votes
John E. Rousmaniere............................ 13 votes
Grover O’Neill.................................. 12 votes
Wilhelmina Estberg.............................. 12 votes
Upon the stipulated facts summary judgment will be granted pronouncing the foregoing result, without costs. Inasmuch as all parties have agreed that the questions at issue could properly be determined in this action, the court has not been astute to find reasons for reaching a contrary conclusion. Settle order on notice.