Attorney Gen. v. Folsom
| Decision Date | 28 July 1899 |
| Citation | 45 A. 410,69 N.H. 556 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL ex rel. PEARSON v. FOLSOM. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Quo warranto by the attorney general, on the relation of one Pearson, against Edward S. Folsom. Information granted.
Information in the nature of a quo warranto to determine the right of the defendant to the office of supervisor of the check list for the town of Epping. Facts agreed: At the biennial meeting of the town in November,
1898, which was opened at 10 o'clock a. m., the polls were declared closed by the moderator at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, in accordance with a vote then duly passed, and the election officers began the work of assorting and counting the ballots. For a short time before this no ballot had been offered. At the other biennial meetings held in the town since 1892, the polls were closed at 6 o'clock p. m. About an hour after the polls were closed, while the officers were still engaged in assorting and counting the ballots, and before they had learned the results, a legal voter of the town, who had been temporarily absent, and had just arrived at the meeting, was allowed to vote, notwithstanding the protest of one of the ballot inspectors. He voted for the defendant for supervisor. No other ballot was received after the polls were closed. The result of the ballot for third supervisor was a tie, one of the relators and the defendant each having 180 votes. The moderator declared that there was no choice for this office. The meeting was adjourned to a later date, when, upon a ballot, the defendant received a plurality of the votes cast, and was duly declared elected to the office. He has taken the oath of office and entered upon the discharge of its duties.
Edwin G. Eastman, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
John T. Bartlett, for defendant.
BLODGETT, C. J. Chapter 78, Laws 1897, relating to the manner of conducting elections, provides (section 18) that "immediately after the polls are closed the ballots shall be examined and the votes * * * shall be counted by the moderator, in the presence of the town clerk, the selectmen, and the other election officers herein provided"; that "the counting shall be public, but within the guardrail and shall not be adjourned nor postponed until it shall have been completed"; and that while the ballots are being counted "only the aforesaid officers shall be allowed within said inclosure." The issue raised by the facts turns upon the legality of the single ballot in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green Mountain Realty Corp.. v. the Fifth Estate Tower
...upon it, a town meeting is a legislative body.” New London v. Davis, 73 N.H. 72, 74, 59 A. 369 (1904); see Attorney General v. Folsom, 69 N.H. 556, 557, 45 A. 410 (1899) (“In New England town meetings the voters are the sovereigns, and their will, when duly expressed, is supreme.”). At issu......
-
Neville v. Highfields Farm, Inc.
...town meetings the voters are the sovereigns, and their will, when duly expressed, is supreme." Attorney–General v. Folsom, 69 N.H. 556, 557, 45 A. 410, 410 (1899). We therefore affirm the trial court's finding that neither Article 42 nor the selectmen's implementation of it are invalid due ......
-
Neville v. Highfields Farm Inc.
..."In New England town meetings the voters are the sovereigns, and their will, when duly expressed, is supreme." Attorney-General v. Folsom, 69 N.H. 556, 557, 45 A. 410, 410 (1899). We therefore affirm the trial court's finding that neither Article 42 nor the selectmen's implementation of it ......
-
Moulton v. Beals
...'In New England town meetings the voters are the sovereigns, and their will, when duly expressed, is supreme.' Attorney General v. Folsom, 69 N.H. 556, 557, 45 A. 410. In the early case of Town of Union v. Crawford, 19 Conn. 331, 337, it was said that while 'selectmen, under the general aut......
-
Election Emergencies: Voting in the Wake of Natural Disasters and Terrorist Attacks
...of the precinct" from voting, because the state constitution specified a mandatory closing time); Attorney ex rel. Pearson v. Folsom, 45 A. 410, 410 (N.H. 1899) (holding that election officials have "no right" to accept a vote after "the polls were legally closed"). But see Lane v. Fern, 20......