Lehlbach v. Haynes

• Decision Date: 07 December 1891
• Citation: 23 A. 422,54 N.J.L. 77
• Parties: LEHLBACH v. HAYNES.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

23 A. 422

54 N.J.L. 77

LEHLBACH

v. HAYNES.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 7, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Case certified to circuit court, Essex county, for advisory opinion; Depue, Justice.

Petition of Herman Lehlbach to the cir-cut court, of Essex county to contest the election of Joseph E. Haynes, as mayor of the city of Newark. Referred to the supreme court for its advisory opinion. Advised that the petition should be dismissed.

Argued November term, 1891, before REED and DIXON, JJ.

John A. Miller and R. W. Parker, for contestant.

F. W. Stevens, for incumbent.

DIXON, J. On October 31, 1891, Herman Lehlbach presented to the circuit court of Essex county a petition, under sections 100-115 of "An act to regulate elections," approved April 18, 1876, (Revision, p. 355,) to contest the election of Joseph E. Haynes as mayor of the city of Newark, at the charter election held October 13, 1891; and thereupon the circuit court referred to this court the question whether such petition should be dismissed, on the ground that it does not state a case within the statute. The statute provides that the election of any person to a county, township, or city office may be contested: (1) For malconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of the members of any board of election in any township, ward, or district, or any member of the board of county canvassers, sufficient to change the result; (5) when illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change the result; (6) for any error in any board of canvassers, in counting the votes, or declaring the result of the election, if such error would change the result; (7) for any other cause which shows that another was the person legally elected. The statute requires the contestant to file a petition in writing, indorsed by at least fifteen qualified electors of the proper county or township, setting forth one or more of the causes above specified, and the particular circumstances of the case, duly verified by the oaths or affirmations of at least two of the petitioners; and when the reception of illegal, or the rejection of legal, votes is alleged as a cause of contest, the names of the persons who so voted, or whose votes were rejected, with the township, ward, or district where they voted or offered to vote, must be set forth in the petition, if known. The petition now before us states the general grounds of contest almost in the words of the statute as above recited, and then proceeds to give what the petitioners deem the "particular circumstances of the case." It is with regard to the definiteness and sufficiency of these particulars that the counsel for the incumbent, Mr. Haynes, assail the legality of the petition. There is no occasion for an attempt to paraphrase the expression "particular circumstances of the case;" it is itself clear. The object of requiring the circumstances to be stated in the petition was to enable the court to see that the case presented is within the statute, and to enable the incumbent properly to prepare for his defense. By keeping these purposes in view, the definiteness of each allegation and the sufficiency of them all may be reasonably tested. The general conditions shown by the petition are that in the city there were 63 election districts, wherein, according to the returns, the contestant received 16,847 votes, and the incumbent 17,043, giving the latter a plurality of 196. To defeat this election, the petition alleges that in the whole city 343 votes placed in the ballot-boxes were rejected by the election boards in the count, for causes unknown to the petitioners, who nevertheless charge that many of them cast for Herman Lehlbach were wrongfully rejected. This allegation is too vague. There are several legal reasons for rejecting ballots...