General
In the Matter of the Application of William A. De Groot, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus to the Board of County Canvassers of the County of Queens, Requiring a Recount of the Votes on Ballots Objected to as Marked for Identification, and a Count of Ballots Rejected by the Inspectors of Election as Void, upon a Recount of Such Votes, in Certain Election Districts in the County of Queens, at the Election Held on the 2d day of November, 1909. James F. McLaughlin, Respondent
136 A.D. 899·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1909·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application of William A. De Groot, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus to the Board of County Canvassers of the County of Queens, Requiring a Recount of the Votes on Ballots Objected to as Marked for Identification, and a Count of Ballots Rejected by the Inspectors of Election as Void, upon a Recount of Such Votes, in Certain Election Districts in the County of Queens, at the Election Held on the 2d day of November, 1909. James F. McLaughlin, Respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order of the Special Term modified in the following particulars: Ballot Exhibit Mo. 20 is a void ballot and should not have been counted for James McLaughlin. Ballot Exhibit Mo. 36 is a void ballot and should not have been counted for William A. De Groot. Ballot Exhibit, Mo. 29 is a void ballot and should not have been counted for James F. McLaughlin. Ballot Exhibit No. 42is a void ballot and should not have been counted for James F. McLaughlin. The order, in so far as it is appealed from, as so modified,should be affirmed, without costs to either party, and. a recount had in accordance with this decision. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Burr, Thomas and Rich, JJ., concurred.