In the Matter of the Application of Elmer Krieger for a Special Town Meeting in the Town of Prattsville, N. Y., under the Provisions of Section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law. Elmer Krieger, Respondent; Judson A. Betts, County Treasurer of Greene County, Appellant

In the Matter of the Application of Elmer Krieger for a Special Town Meeting in the Town of Prattsville, N. Y., under the Provisions of Section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law. Elmer Krieger, Respondent; Judson A. Betts, County Treasurer of Greene County, Appellant. Local option — the petition must be filed with the town clerk — if it is not filed in time, a special town meeting cannot thereafter be ordered by the court. Under section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law, requiring' the questions affecting local option in a town to be resubmitted to the electors of the town at the town meeting held every -second year, the filing in the town clerk’s office of . the petition mentioned in the section is a condition precedent to the resubmission of the questions. If the questions were not properly submitted at the biennial town meeting, because of the failure to file such petition in the town, clerk's office, the case falls within the exception to section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law, as amended by-chapter 367 of the Laws of 1900, and the court has no power to direct the holding of a special town meeting, at which the questions shall be again . submitted. Semble, that the manifest purpose of the Legislature in requiring the petition to he filed in the office of the town clerk, was to enable that officer to give the notice required by section 34 of the Town Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 569). Appeal by Judson A. Betts, county treasurer of Greene county, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Ulster Special 'Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Greene ■on the 16th day of July, 1900, directing that a special town meeting be held in the town of Prattsville, Greene county, N. Y., for the purpose of resubmitting to the electors of said town, to be voted on ■at a special town meeting, the four questions provided by section 16 ■of the Liquor Tax Law, and directing that the county treasurer •cancel of record the certified copy of the statement of result of the vote on said local option questions of the said town of Prattsville, ■dated November 8, 1899, and filed in the office of the county treasurer on the 11th day of November, 1899. At a town meeting of the town of Prattsville, held at the time of the general election on November 7, 1899, the four questions -specified in section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law (Laws of 1896, ■chap 112, amd. by Laws of 1897, chap. 312; Laws of 1898, chap. 167; Laws of 1899, chaps. 398, 434) were submitted to the electors ■of the town. A petition, signed by the electors of the town to the number of ten per centum of votes cast at the next preceding general ■election, requesting such submission, was filed in the office of the clerk of Greene county, but no petition' for such submission was filed in the office of the town clerk of the town of Prattsville, nor ■did the clerk of said town give any notice of the proposed questions and that a vote thereon would1 be taken by ballot at the town meeting, as required by section 34 of the Town Law (Laws of 1890, ■chap. 569). A majority of the votes cast on each of the four questions was in the- negative. The whole number of ballots cast at said ■election was 230, of which 36 were blank on the first question, 98 blank on the second question, 101 blank on the third question, and 54 blank on the fourth question. On May 5, 1900, a petition, signed and acknowledged by at least ten per cent of the electors who voted at the next preceding general election, was filed in the town clerk’s office at Prattsville, requesting the resubmission of the four questions to the electors of the town at a special town meeting thereafter to be held, and thereafter a motion, on notice, was -made at a Special Term of this court for an order directing a special town meeting to be held for the purpose of resubmitting to the electors the .said four questions and for the cancellation of the certified copy of statement of result of the vote of November 8, 1899, filed in the office of the treasurer of Greene county. From the order granting such motion this appeal is taken. P. W. Cullinan, for the appellant. Clarence E. Bloodgood, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Edwards, J.:] Edwards, J.: The question presented on this appeal is whether the filing in the town clerk’s office of the petition required by section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law is indispensable to a submission of the four ques-. tions specified in that section to the electors of the town. This question has been answered in the affirmative in an able and exhaustive opinion of this court in the fourth department. (Matter of Eggleston, 51 App. Div. 38.) Section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law requires the submission of the four questions therein specified to the electors of the town at the first town meeting occurring after March 23,-1896. ' This provision, is clearly mandatory. That section further provides that “The-same questions shall be again submitted in the same way at the town meeting held in every second year thereafter, provided the electors of the town to the number of ten per centum of votes cast at the next preceding general election shall, by a written petition, signed and acknowledged by such electors before a notary public of other person authorized to take acknowledgments or administer oaths, and filed twenty days before such town meeting with the officer charged with the duty of furnishing ballots for the election, request such, submission.” This clearly makes the filing of the petition a condition precedent to the resubmission of those questions. It was evidently the intention of the statute that at the first town meeting held after the passage of the act the will of the qualified electors of each town should be ascertained upon the four local option questions, and that in every second year thereafter an oppor-r tunity should be afforded for the expression of such will, provided the petition required by the statute had been duly filed. In the absence of such a petition there can be no valid submission of these questions. The manifest purpose of the Legislature in requiring the petition to be filed in the office of the clerk of the town was so that officer might give the notice required by section 34 of the Town. Law to be given by him, and through such publicity a full expression of the will of the electors might be secured. The respondent claims that the result of the vote on these questions at the election on November 7, 1899, is indicative of the want ■of publicity which the statute was designed to give; but whether or not this claim is correct is not here material, as the submission of the questions without the filing of the petition is invalid regardless of the result. But I am of opinion that the order appealed from was erroneously granted, for the reason that when the application therefor was made section 16 of the Liquor Tax Law had been amended by chapter 367 of the Laws of 1900, which' went into effect April 10, 1900. The provision of said section for a special town meeting is ■as follows : “ If for any reason, except the faibwe to file cmy petition therefor, the four propositions provided to be submitted herein to the electors of a town shall not have been properly submitted at such biennial town meeting, such propositions shall be submitted at a special town meeting duly called. But a special town meeting ■shall only be called upon filing with the town clerk the petition aforesaid, and an order of the Supreme or County Court, or a justice or judge thereof, respectively, which shall be granted upon sufficient reason being shown therefor.” This was the only authority then existing for an order of the court directing a special town meeting to be held, and it will be observed that this case is within the exception of that provision. Here there was a failure to file a petition in the town clerk’s office, and the filing, as herein held by us, in the county clerk’s office was a nullity. The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed. All concurred. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.