People ex rel. Hayes v. Bates

• Decision Date: 30 May 1863
• Citation: 11 Mich. 362
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: The People on the relation of Michael Hayes v. George Bates

11 Mich. 362

The People on the relation of Michael Hayes v. George Bates

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 30, 1863

Heard May 19, 1863

Quo Warranto.

The following are the admitted facts in this case:

At an election held in the city of Detroit on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1862, Michael Hayes and George Bates were opposing candidates for the office of overseer of highways in and for the first ward of the city. On the same day a general election for the State and county officers was held in said ward, and the same polls were used in, and the same inspectors presided over both elections, but there were separate clerks for each election, and two separate and distinct boxes provided at said polls, one for receiving ballots for State and county officers, and the other for city and ward officers. After closing the polls and upon counting the ballots by the inspectors of election it appeared that of the ballots deposited in the said box for city and ward officers three hundred and five were for said Michael Hayes, and two hundred and ninety-eight were for said George Bates, for said office of overseer of highways; that the total number of ballots for ward and city officers in said box was six hundred and three; that in said box were found ten ballots for State and county officers, and that the total number of names and voters on the poll list of voters who had deposited ballots in the city box was six hundred and thirteen. Upon examining the box kept at said polls for ballots for State and county officers, the inspectors found that the total number of ballots in said box was one less than the total number of names of voters on the State and county poll list of voters who had deposited their ballots and they found in said last mentioned box seven ballots for city and ward officers, all bearing the name of George Bates for overseer of highways in and for said ward; which the inspectors added to the ballots originally deposited in the city and ward box, and counted them as ballots regularly cast for said Bates, whereby a tie was produced between said Bates and said Hayes for said office. After adding said seven votes as aforesaid, the number of ballots for city and ward officers, including said office of overseer of highways, was three less than the number of names on the city poll list; and thereupon said inspectors did certify and return to the clerk of said city of Detroit that the said Michael Hayes and the said George Bates had each received three hundred and five votes at said election for said office.

Afterwards, in pursuance of the charter of the city of Detroit, providing for cases "where two or more shall receive an equal number of votes for the same office," lots were drawn by the proper city officers to determine whether said Hayes or said Bates should be overseer of highways for said ward, and the said Bates was elected by the drawing of said lot, and entered upon the office of overseer of highways for said ward. The said drawing and the entrance into office by said Bates were regular and legal, provided that the tie votes produced by counting said seven ballots were legal.

Judgment for respondent.

G. V. N. Lothrop and J. L. Chipman, for the relator.

Maynard & Meddaugh, for defendant.

Christiancy, J. Martin, Ch. J. and Manning, J. concurred. Campbell, J. dissenting.

OPINION

Christiancy J.:

The only question in this case is whether the seven ballots for city officers found in the State and county box, having the name of the respondent upon them, were properly counted for him by the inspectors.

The two elections, though held upon the same day, were in law distinct and independent of each other, as much as if they happened on different days; and it is, in fact, only in each alternate year that they can occur together. But, though thus distinct, and the ballots to be deposited in separate boxes, yet as both were held together under the supervision of the same inspectors, with both boxes before them for the reception of ballots, the inspector receiving the ballot might be liable, by honest mistake, occasionally to deposit a ballot in the wrong box; and, if he understood that the ballots found in the wrong box were in no case to be counted, he might do the same thing for a fraudulent purpose. But the elector is not to be deprived of his vote either by the mistake or fraud of the inspector in depositing it in the wrong box, if the intention of the voter can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. To hold otherwise would be to give more effect to the letter than to the manifest purpose of the statute. And if, in consequence of an error thus caused, the intention of the voters could not be ascertained with the requisite certainty, the election would probably be held void as to all the officers whose election might be affected by the ballots thus misplaced.

Nor do I think the ballots in question should be rejected, though they might have got into the wrong box by the honest mistake of the voters themselves, if their bona fide intention to vote these ballots for city officers can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; unless, indeed, there should be reasonable ground for believing that, by a similar mistake they, or some of them, may have put another city ballot into the city box at the same election. There can be no ground for supposing a mistake of the latter kind in this case, since, if this had been so, the city ballots found in the two boxes must, together, have exceeded the number of electors voting at the city election, as shown by the poll lists of that election: whereas, when all were counted, they fell three short of the number shown by the poll lists.

There were found in the city box six hundred and thirteen ballots and this agreed with the number voting at the city election, as shown by the poll lists. But, on examination, it was found that ten of these ballots were for State and county officers, leaving only six hundred and three for city officers. The case does not show the whole number of ballots found in the State and county box,...