McQuade v. Furgason

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: McQuade v. Furgason, 91 Mich. 438, 51 N.W. 1073 (Mich. 1892)
• Decision Date: 22 April 1892
• Parties: MCQUADE v. FURGASON et al. SANSOUCI et al. v. SAME.

51 N.W. 1073

91 Mich. 438

MCQUADE v. FURGASON et al.

SANSOUCI et al. v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 22, 1892

Mandamus proceedings on the relation of Peter McQuade against William A. Furgason, Charles H. Riopelle John Seavitt, Jr., and Ari E. Woodruff, as board of inspectors of the election for district No. 1 of Ecorse township, Wayne county, and on the relation of Oliver Sansouci and others against the same defendants, to compel them to canvass the returns from district No. 2 of such township. Writ allowed.

George H. Prentis, for relator. John B Corliss, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The township of Ecorse was divided into two election districts each having a board of inspectors of election. At the election held April 4th the respondents were the inspectors in district No. 1, and, under the law, were the official canvassers of the township. The respondents, except Charles H. Riopelle, refused to canvass the return from precinct No 2, but rejected it as void for alleged violations of the election law. The petitioners claim that a consolidation of the returns of the two precincts would show that they were elected, and pray for the writ of mandamus to compel this action on the part of the respondents. The alleged violations are that said Riopelle, as chairman of the inspectors of precinct No. 2, permitted outsiders to go into the booths with voters, and help them make up their ballots; that such electors were never sworn or examined in any manner by either of said inspectors to ascertain whether such voters could read their ballots, or were incapacitated from performing their duty; that Inspectors Montie and Haltiner repeatedly protested against such conduct, but were overruled by the chairman; that said Riopelle permitted upwards of 10 different outsiders to accompany a large number of voters into the booths to help them in making their ballots; that upwards of 50 voters were thus assisted without any examination as required by the statute; that these outsiders went into the booth with the voters, and remained there until the ballots were cast; that one party, Henry Visger, was a constant attendant upon such voters, and went into the booth without any question, oath, or interference by said Riopelle, fixed the ballots, and saw that they were cast as prepared by him. These statements are supported by Francis J. Montie, one of the inspectors and the township treasurer, by Oscar D....