Wojcinski v. State Bd. of Canvassers, 21

• Citation: 347 Mich. 573,81 N.W.2d 390
• Decision Date: 28 February 1957
• Docket Number: No. 21,21
• Parties: Robert J. WOJCINSKI, Plaintiff, v. STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS and James M. Hare, Secretary of State, Defendants.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 390

81 N.W.2d 390

347 Mich. 573

Robert J. WOJCINSKI, Plaintiff, v. STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS and James M. Hare, Secretary of

State, Defendants.

No. 21.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 28, 1957.

Edward P. Echlin, Detroit, for Wojcinski.

Edmund E. Shepherd, Lansing, for the Board.

Before the Entire Bench.

KELLY, Justice.

On January 17, 1957, plaintiff, Robert J. Wojcinski, a practicing attorney in Michigan for 35 years Filed his petition praying that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Board of Canvassers to annul and revoke its 'determination of insufficiency' in regard to plaintiff's nominating petitions as a nonpartisan candidate for the office of circuit judge for the third judicial circuit for the State of Michigan.

In said petition plaintiff stated that he filed with the defendants nominating petitions containing 12,680 signatures, the same being 1,630 in excess of the number of signatures required by law, and that defendants concluded that said petitions were insufficient claiming that there were only 12,390 signatures filed and that because 1,387 of same were doubtful or invalid plaintiff's petitions were short 47 signatures of the minimum number required.

After a hearing held before this Court, attended by attorneys for plaintiff and defendants (at which hearing it was admitted that after a further recheck the 47 signatures claimed short had been reduced to 37), an order to show cause was granted and upon return thereto an order of reference was entered referring the matter to the circuit court for the county of Ingham for the purpose of taking testimony.

On January 21, 1957, the Hon. Louis E. Coash, judge of the Ingham county circuit court, conducted said hearing and full and ample opportunity was afforded to both plaintiff and defendants to offer proof and cross-examine in regard to the matters in issue.

Judge Coash made his report to this Court with a transcript of all testimony taken at said hearing and, also, his finding. In the finding he stated:

'This Court listened to the several witnesses for about five hours and I cannot find where anyone who testified is in any way withholding information or is not entirely truthful in their statements. These petitions were left in Mr. Montgomery's office for several days, some of them were taken to Detroit and were handled by many people before the defendants ever made a count of the number of petitions or the number of signatures. I believe from the testimony that an honest mistake could have been made by some of the employees who handled these petitions and that some of them could have been either lost or mislaid. I believe the plaintiff, Mr. Wojcinski, was perfectly honest in his statement that he filed 12,680 names and after throwing out the 1404 he would still have sufficient petitions to equal or go above the 11,050 necessary to have his name placed on the ballot.

'If I had this matter before me and would have to make a final finding I would grant the plaintiff's petition and order the defendants to certify plaintiff as a valid candidate for Wayne County Circuit Judge.'

Plaintiff and his witness Sirica both testified that they had checked the petitions before same were filed and that said check disclosed 614 full petitions of 20 names each or a total of 12,280 names, and that there were some partially filled petitions containing 400 names for a total of 12,680 names. The proofs offered by defendants on the hearing before the circuit judge did not refute the plaintiff's proofs as to the number of names on the petitions when filed.

Defendants' testimony established that on the day plaintiff filed his petitions (December 31, 1956) a large number of petitions of other candidates were filed, creating a very crowded condition in defendants' office and requiring the storing of petitions on tables, chairs, et cetera, in the office; that defendants did not count the number of names on plaintiff's petitions at the time of filing, at which time defendants gave plaintiff a receipt...