In Anthony v. Seger, 1 Hag. Ca. Cons. Court, 13, Sir William Scott said, "When a poll is demanded, the election commences with it, as being the regular mode of popular elections, the show of hands being only a rude and imperfect declaration of the sentiments of the electors. It often happens that on a show of hands the person has a majority, who on a poll is lost in a minority; and if parties could afterwards recur to the show of hands, there would be no certainty or regularity in elections. I am of opinion, therefore, that when a poll is demanded, it is an abandonment of what has been done before, and that everything anterior is not of the substance of the election, nor to be so received."

"If there be any irregularity in the mode of demanding the poll, the taking of the poll would be a complete waiver of such irregularity." PerTindal, C.J., Campbell v. Maund, 5 Ad. & Ell. 88.

It is obvious, that if only the requisite number of candidates to fill the vacancies are put in nomination, they ought at once to be returned. In the Nottingham case, 1 Peck. 77, the committee resolved, "that John Allen, being the returning officer, acted contrary to his duty in opening a poll, and proceeding to take votes for about half an hour, and until forty electors had polled; there being, during that time, no third candidate."

When there is to be no selection of candidates, it would seem to be unnecessary that the electors should express any opinion with regard to the merits of those put in nomination, either by holding up of hands, or otherwise. It is not a little singular, that in the Scotch Reform Act, 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 65, it is provided

by sections 29 and 30, that where there are no more candidates proposed than there are vacancies to be filled, the persons put in nomination are to be declared duly elected on a show of hands; but if there are more candidates, then a poll is to be demanded. It would appear from this, that if the show of hands were against the candidate who had no competitor, no election could be made. The forms of popular elections were unknown in Scotland prior to the Reform Act; hence the peculiarity of the above enactment.

3. Poll denied.] Whenever there are more candidates at an election than there are vacancies to be supplied, and a poll is demanded, the returning officer is bound to take a poll. 1 Journ. 181. Sir E. Coke said in the House, " He liked not the sheriff's answer, that he needed not grant the poll, for he was bound to grant it." If the returning officer refuse or neglect to grant the poll, the election is void, and he may be punished for a misdemeanor. Southwark, Glan. 7, and see 4 Instit. p. 48 (a).

4. Improper appointment of Poll-clerks and Depu ties.] Sheriffs, and other returning officers, have power to appoint poll-clerks to take the poll at the several polling places. 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 45, ss. 65 and 68 (as to England); 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 65, ss. 27 and 30 (Scotland); 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 88, s. 51 (Ireland) (b). The 25 Geo. 3, c. 84, requires that the returning officer shall swear the poll clerks truly and indifferently to

(a) Frome, 2 P. R. & D. 58.
(b) And 13 & 14 Vict. c. 68, s. 4.

take the poll, &c. In a case where it appeared that the returning officer had omitted to swear the poll clerks, it was held that this was contrary to law, but, that it did not avoid the election, as the 25 Geo. 3, c. 84, was a directory statute. Colchester, 1 Peck. 506.

A question was raised in one case, whether the appointment of minors to act as deputies for the returning officer would render the election void. It appeared that out of the seven deputies appointed to take the poll in the several booths, four of them were persons under age; the petition contained several allegations with regard to the impediments and obstructions, thrown in the way of taking the poll at the election. The counsel for the sitting members informed the committee, that not being prepared to deny the fact of the minority of several of the deputies, and having ascertained that impediments by which the taking of the poll was obstructed, and a part of the constituency prevented from giving their votes, had occurred nearly as they were described in the petition, he was obliged to admit that under these circumstances, the election could not be upheld, and that it must on these grounds be declared void. The committee then resolved that the election was void; but did not specify on which of the allegations in the petition they had come to that conclusion. Belfast, Bar. & Aust. 555. In a note, however, by the learned reporters, it is stated, that "they had reason to know that the resolution of the committee was soley founded on an allegation respecting the insufficiency of the booths."

If the election had been properly conducted in other respects, it may well be doubted whether a committee

R

would hold an election void on account of the minority of any of the officials engaged in it. See as to minority of the returning officer. Clithero, 1693.

Where the

5. Impediments in taking the Poll.] statutory provisions as to the administering the bribery oath, and the oaths of qualification had been improperly made use of, for the purpose of occasioning obstruction and delay in the taking of the poll, a committee avoided the election on that ground. 1st Carlow County, 1835, not reported.

See 90 Journ.
This ground of

153, 291, and cited Bar. & Aust. 562. objection to the election was one of those taken in the Belfast case, Bar. & Aust. 553; but it does not appear very clearly whether this was the ground on which the committee in that case declared the election void.

By the 51st sect. of the Irish Reform Act (a), returning officers were required to provide such a number of polling places, and to make such a division of the voters according to the first letter of their names that it shall not be necessary for more than 600 voters to poll in any one place of polling, but so as not to divide the names beginning with the same letter of the alphabet (b); at an election in Ireland, there were 892 voters whose name began with the letter M., for whom only one booth had been provided, which booth was of the same dimensions as, and not more convenient than, the other booths which comprised the names of about 530 voters each. It was alleged,

(a) 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 88.

(b) See 9 & 10 Vict. c. 19, and 13 & 14 Vict. c. 68. Provisions for more easily taking the poll in Ireland.

among other matters of complaint in the petition, that this booth for the letter M. was so insufficient that a number of voters were prevented thereby from polling : the election was declared to be void, and as it would appear by the note of the reporters for this reason. Belfast, Bar. & Aust. 553.

6. Insufficient notice of holding Election.] The rule on this subject appears now to be fixed, though some of the older decisions laid down a different principle; that where any of the statutory regulations for the holding of elections have not been complied with, an election will not on that account be held void, unless the result of the election can be shewn to have been affected by their non-observance. Orme on Elections, p. 16. In the Seaford case, 3 Luders, 3, where the returning officer had proceeded to the election without having given four days' notice of it, as required by 7 & 8 Wm. 3, c. 25, the committee determined the election to be void. And also in the Totness case, 1840, cited from the short-hand writer's notes in the Athlone case, Bar. & Arn. 130, where the notice of holding the election was given on the 19th July, and the election was held on the 23rd, so that there were only three clear days intervening, an objection having been taken in the petition to the validity of the election on that ground. The committee resolved, "That the expression in the 7 & 8 Wm. 3, c. 25, four days' notice at the least, must be understood as requiring four clear days, and that therefore the election was void." These are the cases which are the exceptions to the principle above laid down. It does not appear that there was much argument on the subject in the Totness case.