The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edwin W. Fiske, Relator, v. Edward M. Anderson and Edward H. Kent, as Inspectors of Election in the First Election District of the Third Ward of the City of Mount Vernon, N. Y., Defendants, Impleaded with Edward F. Brush, Appellant. (Second Proceeding.)

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edwin W. Fiske, Relator, v. Edward M. Anderson and Edward H. Kent, as Inspectors of Election in the First Election District of the Third Ward of the City of Mount Vernon, N. Y., Defendants, Impleaded with Edward F. Brush, Appellant. (Second Proceeding.) Second Department, January 16, 1918. Elections — inspectors’ finding as to validity of ballots of soldiers controlling. Under section 514 of the Election Law, as amended, the inspectors’ finding that soldiers intended to vote for Edward F. Brush should be controlling although the ballots were marked “ Dr. Brush,” “ Brush ” and “ Mr. Brush.” Appeal by the defendant, Edward F. Brush, from an order -of the Supreme Court, made at the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 7th day of January, 1918, holding, after recanvass of the vote in the first election district of the third ward of the city of Mount Vernon, N. Y., that the return by such inspectors of election had been correctly made, also that the figures therein had been properly incorporated by the county board of canvassers. From this order the relator has appealed to this court. George H. Taylor, Jr. [James H. Cavanaugh with him on the brief], for the appellant. Arthur M. Johnson [Sydney A. Syme and Frank A. Bennett with him on the brief], for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam:] Per Curiam: The votes in this district were recanvassed under a procedure followed in other districts, but without affecting the result. The relator had asked relief against a single ballot marked for mayor “ Dr. Brush,” without Christian name or initials. After recanvass relator further claimed to throw out three ballots; that is, besides the one marked “ Dr. Brush,” a ballot “ Brush,” and another “ Mr. Brush.” As we held, in the third district of the third ward, such ballots had not been legally protested. The order should, therefore, be reversed, because all the ballots for appellant Brush had been canvassed and counted by the inspectors without objection or protest (as has been decided in 181 App. Div. 705), so that there was • no authority to reopen the ballot box and recanvass the votes. Under section 514 of the Election Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 17 [Laws of 1909, chap. 22], as amd. by Laws of 1917, chap. 815, § 6), we add that the inspectors’ finding that these three soldiers intended to vote for Edward F. Brush should be controlling. The order, however, is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Rich, Putnam, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ., concurred. Order of January 7, 1918, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.