State ex rel. Ennis v. City of Janesville

• Decision Date: 03 April 1895
• Citation: 62 N.W. 933,90 Wis. 157
• Parties: STATE EX REL. ENNIS v. CITY OF JANESVILLE ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

90 Wis. 157

62 N.W. 933

STATE EX REL. ENNIS

v.CITY OF JANESVILLE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Rock county; John R. Bennett, Judge.

Certiorari to the city of Janesville to review the proceedings of a special election. From a judgment on a demurrer dismissing the relation and suppressing the writ, with costs, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Certiorari to the city of Janesville, its mayor and common council, to review the proceedings of a special election at which the electors determined the amount to be paid in the city of Janesville for a license to sell intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises. The relation questions the validity of the election on two grounds: (1) That the election was not notified according to law; and (2) that the ballots provided and voted were not lawful ballots. It is alleged that the notice of the election was published in only two of the three daily papers published in Janesville, whereas it is claimed the law requires it to be published in all the daily papers published in the city, and that the ballots provided and used were separate ballots, each having printed upon it the figures designating the sum to be paid for the license, as on some were the figures $200, on others $350, and on still others $500, whereas it is claimed all these figures should have been upon one ballot. The largest number of ballots was in favor of the highest figure. The respondents demurred to the relation. There was judgment sustaining the demurrer and quashing the writ, from which the relator appeals.J. L. Mahoney and Winans & Hyzer, for appellant.

Horace McElroy, for respondents.

NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).

The special election is to be held valid, in this action, if it does not affirmatively appear that it was not notified as provided by section 3, c. 296, of the Laws of 1885 (sections 1548, 1548b, Rev. St.), and if it does not affirmatively appear that the ballots used were not such as are directed by that section. This is not a law relating to general elections, and elections under it are not governed by laws relating to general elections, any further than is provided by that statute itself. Elections under it are to be governed by its own special provisions. If such special provisions are complied with, the election is valid. That the form of ballots used was strictly in conformity to the form directed by the statute is clear. It also seems clear that it was not intended to repeal or modify this provision by chapter 288, Laws 1893. That chapter provides industriously how persons may be elected to offices, and how elections for that purpose shall be notified, held, and conducted, and the form of ballots which must be used, but its provisions are entirely silent as to the form of ballot to be used in an election upon any other matter. The law under which the election in question was held is in no respect inconsistent with its provisions; nor is it named among the acts expressly repealed by section 127. Section 3 of chapter 296 of the Laws...