O'Flaherty v. City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 06 March 1894
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: O'FLAHERTY v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

29 A. 466

64 Conn. 159

O'FLAHERTY

v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 6, 1894.

Act March 26, 1889 (amending the charter of the city of Bridgeport, and consolidating the government of the town and city), § 8, provides that all persons registered as electors prior to the biennial electors' meeting, and, by virtue of such registration, entitled to vote at such meeting in the town of Bridgeport, may vote at the succeeding city meeting held for the choice of officers, and that at all city meetings all persons may vote who possess the specified qualifications (prescribed by Gen. St. § 36, for voters at town meetings, irrespective of registration). Section 11 provides that at the annual city meeting, on the first Monday of April, for the choice of officers, votes shall he received "from the electors then registered." Held, that such act, by virtue of a clause repealing all acts and parts of acts inconsistent therewith, did not repeal Gen. St. § 215, which requires the registrars of the town of Bridgeport to complete a correct list of all the electors therein prior to the town meeting held on the first Monday of April.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Fair-field county; Curtis, Judge.

Action by William O'Flaherty against the city of Bridgeport to recover compensation for services rendered as registrar of voters. From a judgment for defendant, entered on

sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Lockwood & Beers, for appellant Daniel Davenport, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. This is a suit to recover payment for services rendered by the plaintiff, as registrar of the town of Bridgeport, in completing a registry list for the annual town meeting held on the first Monday of April, 1892. The defendant demurred on the ground that there was no law requiring or authorizing the performance of such services. The demurrer was sustained, and judgment given for the defendant The plaintiff appealed, assigning, as the only reason of appeal, error in the court below in sustaining the demurrer. The demurrer admits, for the purposes of decision, that the defendant is liable to pay for the services, if they were authorized by law. The case therefore involves a single question,—did the law authorize the registrars of the town of Bridgeport to complete a correct list of all the electors in said town prior to the town meeting held on the first Monday of April, 1892?

Section 215 of the General Statutes imposes such duty upon the registrars of Bridgeport, and under the provisions of section 277 they are liable to fine and imprisonment for neglect to perform that duty; but the defendant claims that section 215 is inconsistent with the provisions of "An act amending the charter of the city of Bridgeport and consolidating the government of the town and city of Bridgeport," passed March 26, 1889, and published in the special acts of the January, 1889, session (page 854), and is therefore repealed, by virtue of the clause in that act repealing all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions. The amendment to the city charter does not purport to repeal section 215. It is a special act, dealing with the municipal affairs of a single city, and was enacted in View of existing general statutes regulating registration; and, if it can fairly be construed as consistent with those statutes, it is the duty of the court to give it such construction. The actual inconsistency alleged between section 215 and the special act is based on the claim that two sections (to wit, sections 8 and 11) of the special act are inconsistent with each other, if section 215 remains unrepealed. Section 8 provides that all persons registered as electors prior to the biennial electors' meeting, and, by virtue of such registration, entitled to vote at such meeting in the town of Bridgeport, may vote at the succeeding city meeting held for the choice of officers, and that, at all city meetings, all persons may vote who possess the specified qualifications (the specified qualifications being the same qualifications that are prescribed by section 36 of the General Statutes for voters at town meetings, irrespective of registration). Section 11 provided that at the annual city meeting, on the first Mon- of April, for the choice of officers, vote shall be received "from the electors then registered." It is plain from the context that the word "electors" is used in the phrase, "electors then registered," with the meaning, "freemen of the city," or "qualified voters of the city;" and some confusion in construing this special act will be avoided by remembering that the act, throughout, uses the word "elector" inaccurately. The constitution has given to the word "elector" a precise, technical meaning, and it is ordinarily used in our legislation with that meaning only. An "elector" is a person possessing the qualifications fixed by the constitution, and duly admitted to the privileges secured, and in the manner prescribed, by that instrument. The electors, and no others, can vote for state officers and members of the general assembly. They are electors of the state, but they can become electors only through the action of the towns, and can only exercise their exclusive privileges, as originally defined by the constitution, in the towns to which they belong. While the legislature can permit none but electors to take part in the "electors' meeting," it may permit other than electors to take part in town, city, and borough meetings, and to vote for local officers. Hence, there is a broad distinction, which has been observed in legislation, between electors' meetings and meetings of towns, cities, and boroughs; between electors and voters. Within the meaning of the constitution, there can be no electors of a city, and tie act, in speaking of "meetings of the electors of the city," "electors of the city," and "electors of the town and city," is confusing, and renders its accurate construction more difficult The inconsistency thus claimed between sections 8 and 11 is that section 8 excludes all persons but the electors who were registered prior to the biennial state election in November, and, by virtue of such registration, were entitled to vote at such election, from voting at the following annual city election for the choice of officers, i. e. that section 8 excludes from voting, at the annual city election for the choice of officers, all persons except electors of the state duly registered prior to the preceding biennial state election; that section 11 provides that, at such annual city election, votes shall be received from all voters of the city then registered; that if there is no registration, except the biennial registration, prior to the said election, the two sections are consistent but if the law provides for an intervening registration, then section 8 excludes those registered at the intervening registration from voting, and section 11 commands that their votes shall be received, and so there is an inconsistency between the two sections; that section 215 of the General Statutes provides for such intervening registration, and must therefore be repealed by implication. The difficulties involved in maintaining this claim are obvious, and conclusive against its validity. The general statute which the defendant claims is repealed in this indirect manner deals with a subject distinct from that dealt with by the special act, and covers a ground not touched by that act. The former deals with provisions for enforcing throughout the state a settled policy in respect to the admission of electors and registration of voters. The latter deals only with the special qualifications of city voters, who must exercise their right to vote in accordance with the general laws regulating the admission of electors and registration. Section 215 is a part of the general statutory provision for requiring, in every town in the state, a meeting of the selectmen and town clerk, to be held once in every year, for the admission of electors, and for requiring the registrars to annually place upon the registry list the names of the electors so admitted, in order that the laws of registration for the promotion of free suffrage may not operate in any town to the exclusion of any elector, otherwise qualified, from voting at the state election, and at the annual town election immediately following his admission as an elector. This general statutory provision is contained in sections 219 to 224, inclusive, and sections 207 to 216, inclusive. Section 215 is therefore, in reality, but one section of one public act enacted to carry out one general purpose, and is essential to the accomplishment of the purpose. Tint purpose is to secure to every qualified citizen of the state, in whatever town he may live, the right to be admitted as an elector within the year preceding each annual town meeting, and to provide in each town for a correct registry list of all electors before each electors' meeting, and for a revision of that list for use before each annual town meeting for election of officers. We think that legal effect is given to this intent of the legislature, relative to admission of electors and registration of voters by the sections of the General Statutes covering the subject, and in force in 1889, when the special act under construction was passed. Section 219 provides for a meeting of selectmen and town clerk in every town, for the admission of electors, prior to each electors' meeting. As these electors' meetings occur biennially in the even-numbered years, sections 222 and 223 provide for a similar meeting for the admission of electors prior to each annual town...