In re Margarum

• Decision Date: 02 December 1892
• Citation: 55 N.J.L. 12,25 A. 702
• Parties: In re MARGARUM et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

25 A. 702

55 N.J.L. 12

In re MARGARUM et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 2, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Case certified from circuit court, Sussex county, for advisory opinion.

Petition to a justice of the supreme court, under an act regulating elections, by Theodore F. Margarum and others, for a new election in the township of Wantage. The elected officers appeared, and moved to dismiss the petition. The court certified the case to the supreme court for its advisory opinion. Advice refused.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by Beasley, C. J.:

A petition, with affidavits annexed, was presented on the 28th March, 1892, to the justice of the supreme court holding the circuit court in the county of Sussex, representing that at an election just held in the township of Wantage, in said county, for the election of a town clerk, collector, and other officers, the votes of a certain class of voters had been rejected by the board of election. Thereupon the following order was made, viz.: "A petition, with affidavits annexed, was presented on March 28, 1892, to Hon. William J Magie, one of the justices of the supreme court, holding the circuit court in and for the county of Sussex. A copy of the petition and affidavits is hereto annexed, and made a part of this certificate. The petition was made and presented under the supplement to the act regulating elections, which supplement was approved May 28, 1890, and the amendment there of approved March 23, 1891. The said justice appointed Wednesday, the 6th day of April, 1892, at the court house in Newton, in said county, as the time and place when and where he would investigate the truth of the allegations contained in said petition, and in the order making said appointment; also ordered that the township officers declared elected at said election should be served with notice of said appointment, and such notice was given to said officers. At the time and place so appointed, the petitioners, and the officers declared elected at said election, appeared by counsel. Thereupon the counsel for such officers moved to dismiss the said petition on the ground that, if the allegations contained in said petition were sustained by proof, the relief prayed for in said petition could not be granted, but the said petition must he dismissed, pursuant to the provisions of the abovementioned acts, under which the same was made and presented. The said justice, being of opinion that the question presented by said motion is one of doubt and difficulty, hereby certifies the same to the supreme court for its advisory opinion, viz.: Whether, if the allegations contained in said petition shall be sustained by proof, the relief prayed for in said petition can be granted, or whether, in such case, the petition must be dismissed."

James F. Conklin, for petitioners.

Charles J. Roe, for township of Wantage

BEASLEY, C. J., (after stating the facts.) The litigation in this case relates to an election that was held recently in the township of Wantage, in the county of Sussex, and it has been referred to this court for its advisory opinion. The legal procedure referred to was founded on the fifty-second section of the act approved May 28, 1890, entitled "A further supplement to an act entitled 'An act to regulate elections,' approved April eighteenth, one thousand eight hundred and seventy six." The course of law there prescribed Is, in general effect, this, viz.: That whenever, within 20 days next succeeding any election in any election district or voting precinct in any county of this state, a petition signed by a certain...