Hubbard v. Woodsum

• Decision Date: 02 January 1895
• Citation: 32 A. 802,87 Me. 88
• Parties: HUBBARD et al. v. WOODSUM et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

32 A. 802

87 Me. 88

HUBBARD et al.

v. WOODSUM et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 2, 1895.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Oxford county.

This was a proceeding in equity brought by Hiram Hubbard and others, taxpayers and inhabitants of Paris, Oxford county, under Rev. St. c. 77, § 6, par. 9, to enjoin the defendants William Woodsum and others, who are the county commissioners and treasurer of that county, from expending any money of said county, or obtaining any loan, issuing any notes, bonds, or other obligations for the payment of money upon the credit of said county, for the purposes of locating or building new county buildings at South Paris.

The defendants claimed to act under a majority vote in favor of the proposed removal of the county buildings to South Paris, thrown at an election under Rev. St. c. 78, § 14.

By the returns made to the county commissioners there appeared to be 3,299 votes thrown in favor, and 3,149 votes thrown against, the proposition. Dismissed.

J. P. Swasey and O. H. Hersey, for plaintiffs.

A. E. Herrick, S. S. Stearns, and Geo. D. Bisbee, for defendants.

PETERS, C. J. In Instituting proceedings to obtain the consent of the county of Oxford for the erection of new county buildings, on a new site therefor, the commissioners of that county issued to the municipal authorities of all the towns and plantations in the county the following notice:

"You are hereby notified that it is our intention to erect new county buildings, including court rooms, offices for the several county officers, jury rooms, library rooms, and fireproof vaults for the records of the probate office, register of deeds, clerk of courts, and county treasurer; also jail and jailer's house, at a cost not to exceed thirty thousand dollars, on the following described lot, situated in the village of South Paris, near the railroad station, and in the shire town of Paris, but more than half a mile from the present location of the county buildings, to wit: Beginning on the westerly side of Western avenue, at a point one hundred and ten feet southerly from the northerly corner of land belonging to the heirs of Ira Cleasby; thence north eighty degrees west, four hundred and twenty-nine feet; thence north four degrees east, two hundred and forty feet; thence south eighty degrees east, four hundred and twenty-nine feet, to said Western avenue; thence southerly by said Western avenue, two hundred and forty feet to the point begun at.

"And you are further notified that the consent of the county is asked that the county commissioners have authority to obtain a loan of money for the use of the county to the amount of $30,000, and issue therefor notes or obligations of the county, with coupons for lawful interest, to that amount. And you are hereby directed to insert the following article in the warrant for the town meeting at the next annual election, to beholden March next:

"'To see if the county commissioners shall be authorized to erect new county buildings, including court rooms, offices for the several county officers, jury rooms, library rooms, and fireproof vaults for the records of the probate office, register of deeds, clerk of courts, and county treasurer; also jail and jailer's house, on the lot selected by them at South Paris, and described as follows, viz.: Beginning on the westerly side of Western avenue, at a point one hundred and ten feet southerly from the northerly corner of land belonging to the heirs of Ira Cleasby; thence north eighty degrees west, four hundred and twenty-nine feet; thence north four degrees east, two hundred and forty feet; thence south eighty degrees east, four hundred and twenty-nine feet, to said Western avenue; thence southerly, by said Western avenue, two hundred and forty feet to the point begun at,—at a cost not to exceed thirty thousand dollars; and to obtain a loan for the use of the county for said sum of thirty thousand dollars, or such a part thereof as they may need, and issue therefor the notes or obligations of the county, with coupons for lawful interest'

"All in favor to give in their votes with the word 'Yes' printed or written thereon, and all opposed with the word 'No' printed or written thereon.

"In order to secure uniformity of action in the several towns, we have prepared printed copies of the above article for use by the several towns, and we recommend that it be inserted in the town warrant next after the article providing for choice of moderator, and that the votes be deposited in a separate ballot box, and that the polls be kept open during the entire session of the town meeting held on that day; said votes to be received, sorted, and counted, for and against said proposal, by the municipal officers, and they, the said municipal officers, and the clerks of the several towns and plantations in said Oxford county, shall certify and return such votes forthwith to the clerk of the county commissioners, that the same may be examined and action taken according to the statute in such case made and provided.

"And we further recommend that the check list be properly and seasonably posted and used in the several towns and plantations, in voting, and that the newly-elected municipal officers be not sworn until after the closing of the polls on the foregoing proposal, so that the same officers may act throughout.

"Given under our hands and the seal of said court, this fourteenth day of February, A. D. 1893. Wm. Woodsum,

"W. W. Whitmarsh,

"J. F. Stearns,

"County Commissioners of the County of Oxford."

It appears that the record of the county commissioners' court is in due form, properly authorizing a submission of the question to the legal voters of the county, and that the proposition was carried by a small majority of the persons voting. The closeness of the vote, and the feeling manifested against the result in some localities in the county led to the institution of this bill in equity to see if, upon close investigation and scrutiny, It might be discovered that the result should be avoided for fraudulent voting or for some illegality in the proceedings.

On the allegation of fraud the complainants fail. Enough fraudulent or illegal votes are not proved to change the result, although the evidence on that point may be enough to reduce somewhat the majority by which the record declares the vote to have been carried. We have examined the facts produced on that part of the case, but a judicial opinion is not the place in which to insert the many details and calculations of figures which produce the result.

Objections are taken to the form of the proposition submitted by the commissioners to the people. It is contended that two propositions should not have been submitted to be passed upon by one vote, and further contended that whether the county would consent to new buildings was one proposition, and whether such new buildings should cost not exceeding $30,000 was another proposition. The argument is that there should have been as many distinct and independent votings as there were subjects or things to vote upon; that the two propositions united in one only would carry more votes than either one would carry alone, and that in that way a result might follow which would be unfair.

In the first place, we think it to be plain that the premises assumed by the complainants are not true. There were not two propositions submitted. But one proposition is contained in...