State ex rel. Scofield v. Starr

• Decision Date: 08 March 1906
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SCOFIELD v. STARR.

63 A. 512

78 Conn. 636

STATE ex rel. SCOFIELD

v. STARR.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 8, 1906.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Information in the nature of quo warranto by the state, on the relation of Horace G. Scofield, against William W. Starr. On demurrer to the state's replication to respondent's plea to the information. From an order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the information, relator appeals. Affirmed.

The charter of the city of Bridgeport provides that the common council shall consist of the mayor and 24 aldermen; that the mayor shall preside at the meetings of the common council: that all elections or appointments within the gift of the common council shall be by ballot and the person receiving a plurality of ballots shall be elected; that the common council shall have power to pass ordinances relative to election of city surveyor, relative to removal of any officer for corruption or misfeasance. Sp. Laws 1895, p. 515; Sp. Laws 1901, p. 1202. An ordinance of the city provided that the common council in March, 1899, and triennially thereafter in the same month, shall elect a city surveyor who shall hold his office for three years. On March 20, 1905, the common council at a meeting warned for the purpose duly elected a city surveyor for the term of three years. At this meeting there were four ballots taken. Upon the first ballot Horace G. Scofield (the relator) received a plurality of ballots. Upon the second and third ballots no one received a plurality. Upon the fourth ballot William W. Starr (the respondent) received a plurality. Starr accepted the office, duly qualified, and entered upon the performance of its duties. The state's attorney filed this information, alleging the election of Scofield and that Starr usurps the office of Scofield, and praying process against Starr requiring him to answer by what right he claims to hold said office. The plea of the respondent denies the election of the relator, alleges that at said meeting the common council in the proceedings to elect a city surveyor voted by ballot four times; that the first vote was irregular in that 25 ballots were east, one of which was blank, whereas but 24 persons were present who were entitled to vote (exclusive of the mayor, who did not vote); that because of said irregularity no person was announced or declared elected by the mayor presiding; that upon the fourth vote by ballot, in which 24 ballots were cast by the aldermen, 13 were cast in favor of the respondent and 11 in favor of the relator, and thereupon the mayor, presiding, declared the respondent elected, and thereupon the respondent accepted the office, duly qualified, and entered upon its duties. The plea further recites in detail the facts alleged to have occurred from the commencement to the close of the process of voting by ballot, including the fact that upon the first vote one blank and 24 ballots were cast, of which 13 were for the relator and 11 for the respondent.

In his replication the relator admits that four ballots were taken before any person was declared elected by the mayor presiding, that upon the fourth ballot the mayor did announce and declare the respondent elected and that the respondent duly qualified and entered upon the duties of the office. He admits the details of the proceeding substantially as recited in the plea except as to a blank ballot being east upon the first vote and this is denied. Subsequently the relator amended his replication by adding a fourth paragraph by which he admits that there was among the ballots cast upon the first vote a blank piece of paper similar in appearance to said ballots, but alleges that said piece of paper was attached to the back of one of said written ballots by accident in the cutting of the ballots for said use of said aldermen and adhered to such written ballot in such a manner that it could not be detected and that the ballot to which it adhered was innocently cast as the ballot of such alderman without his knowledge or the knowledge of any person that such blank piece of paper was so attached; that said blank piece of paper was not cast by any alderman as a separate ballot, nor intended to be so cast or counted; and further alleges that each member of the council cast one separate written ballot, making 24 lawful ballots in all, and further alleges that the tellers counted 24 ballots in all, 13 for him and 11 for Starr, without said blank paper being separated from the ballot to...