Blake v. Brothers

• Decision Date: 01 May 1907
• Citation: 79 Conn. 676,66 A. 501
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BLAKE v. BROTHERS.

66 A. 501

79 Conn. 676

BLAKE

v. BROTHERS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 1, 1907.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Action by Henry T. Blake against Frederick J. Brothers.From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.No error.

Action for damages against the defendant for depriving the plaintiff of his rights as an elector brought to the superior court for New Haven county.The complaint states the following facts: The plaintiff at the state election held November 6, 1906, secured an official ballot, duly issued by the Secretary of State in blank, and wrote thereon in his own handwriting the names of those persons for whom he desired to vote for Governor and other state officers, each under its appropriate title.He sealed the ballot up in an official envelope duly indorsed, as the statute requires, and deposited it upon the ballot box in the First Ward in the city of New Haven, where he was entitled to vote, and it was received by the moderator and duly placed in the box.During the counting of the ballots, after the polls were closed, the defendant, who was moderator of the meeting in said ward, discovered that the plaintiff's ballot had upon it certain identifying marks (in addition to the plaintiff's handwriting) within the meaning of the statute which makes ballots void therefor.No explanation was offered or suggested with regard to said marks.The defendant, as such moderator, on account of said marks and also because said ballot was in writing and not printed as required by law, refused to count it or permit it to be counted, and rejected it as a void ballot, and caused it to be placed in a package of rejected ballots and sealed up and deposited with the town clerk as the law requires concerning rejected ballots.This action of the defendant is alleged to have deprived the plaintiff of his rights as an elector, to his damage.The defendant demurred to the complaint (1) because it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff's ballot was not printed, but was wholly in his own handwriting; (2) because it appears that the ballot had upon it, in addition to the handwriting of the plaintiff, certain other identifying marks within the meaning of the statute making ballots void therefor; (3)the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff in damages because it appears from the complaint that in rejecting the plaintiff's ballot the defendant was acting in accordance with the statutes relating to the conduct of elections and...