State v. Chandless

• Decision Date: 21 May 1894
• Citation: 29 A. 322,56 N.J.L. 682
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DAY v. CHANDLESS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

29 A. 322

56 N.J.L. 682

STATE ex rel. DAY

v. CHANDLESS.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 21, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error to circuit court, Hudson county; before Justice Lippincott.

Quo warranto by the state of New Jersey, on the relation of Benjamin Day, against Charles I. Chandless, to try title to office. From a judgment declaring Day elected, defendant brings error. Reversed.

Allan McDermott, for plaintiff in error. McEwan & McEwan, for defendant in error.

DIXON, J. At an election for town officers and a chosen freeholder held in the town of West Hoboken, Hudson county, on April 11, 1893, Charles I. Chandless received 933 undisputed votes, and Benjamin Day received 925 undisputed votes, for the office of town councilman at large. Besides these, there were cast 35 envelopes, each containing two slips of paper, one headed "Municipal Ticket," the other headed "Regular Republican Nominations," both of which were indorsed by the town clerk as official ballots. On the municipal ticket appeared only the names of persons designated by the voter to fill town offices,—among them, that of Benjamin Day for the office of councilman at large. On the other slip appeared only the name of a candidate for the county office of chosen freeholder. If the ballots in these 35 envelopes can be counted for Day, he was elected councilman at large. If not, Chandless was elected. The canvassing officers declared the latter elected. On quo warranto proceedings in the supreme court, the trial judge, at the Hudson circuit, declared Day elected; and, on exception to his decision, the question is brought to this court by writ of error.

Both sides concede that the question depends upon section 34 of the supplement to "An act to regulate elections," which was approved May 28, 1890 (P. L. 1890, p. 361), and is commonly known as the "Ballot Reform Law." This section requires each voter to inclose his ballot in an official envelope and provides that "in counting the votes cast at any election, the envelopes containing the ballots shall be opened, and * * * if, on opening any envelope, it shall be found to contain more than one ballot, none of the ballots contained therein shall be counted for any candidate, and all such ballots shall be returned to the envelope wherein they were found, and on the face of such envelope shall be written the words 'Rejected Ballots,' and such envelope and ballots shall be strung on the string of rejected ballots." It is obvious that, if this provision is to be enforced as it is written, these disputed ballots cannot be counted; for in every envelope there were two ballots, i. e. two slips of paper, each expressing an elector's vote, each also officially indorsed as a perfect ballot. But, it is said, behind the mere words of the enactment we must seek for the purpose of the lawmaker, and must extend or limit the scope of the law so as...