by the inspectors, and that his plurality would be three votes. That on some of the tickets relator's name was pasted over that of Roberts, but the tickets were counted for Roberts. In other instances votes were counted for Roberts where his name had been erased from the ticket; and that on some tickets whereon relator's name appeared the ballot was counted blank. Relator therefore asks for a recount of the votes, and a correction of the result as announced, and for that purpose prays that the canvassing board "will appoint a committee, and proceed to investigate the facts as set forth" in relator's petition filed, and secure to him a recount of the votes given for and against him for alderman of the Third ward, in accordance with act 208, Laws 1887, and give him such other relief as the relator may be regarded as entitled to in the premises. Relator further states in his petition that the board of city canvassers met the next day, and proceeded to take action upon his petition. The board refused "to appoint a committee to make investigation of the errors and mistakes alleged and complained of in the petition," and laid upon the table a resolution offered to make a recount, and then proceeded to canvass the returns for officers in the Third ward; and when the case of the alderman was reached the returns of the inspectors was read, and thereupon a motion was made and carried to declare Mr. Roberts elected, and the board then adjourned without taking further action; and relator avers that the board refused to investigate the matters set forth in this petition, or to make a recount of the ballots, as required by the law of 1887 referred to, and have thereby refused to recognize his rights and perform their legal and official duty in relation thereto. Relator prays a mandamus requiring the board of city canvassers to meet in the council room in the city of Port Huron, and investigate the matters set forth in his petition, and consider the merits thereof, to bring the ballot boxes of the Third ward before them, appoint a committee, and to make a recount of the votes for and against relator for the office of alderman, and declare the result thereof, in pursuance of said act No. 208 of 1887. The respondent gives as reasons in the return made to the order to show cause why the board of city canvassers did not allow a recount of the votes that the votes were counted twice by the inspectors of the election in the ward, and that each time the result was the same. That the number of votes cast correspond exactly with the poll-list kept at the time. That relator was present when the count was made by the inspectors of election, and made no objection to the count or result, for either mistake or fraud. That at the meeting of the board of canvassers held to consider the subject of relator's petition he was asked by the board if he had any proof he wished to submit, tending to show error or fraud on the part of the inspectors of election in the Third ward. The relator said he did not think there was any fraud or intentional error, but that there might have been a mistake in the counting. That his attorney was with him before the board, and claimed in behalf of the relator that it was the duty of the respondent, as the matter then stood, to proceed and make a recount of the ballots cast for the office of alderman in said ward, and that relator should offer no proofs. That, the board being satisfied the count made by the inspectors of election was correct, they declined to recount the votes, and proceeded with the canvass of the vote as returned by the inspectors of election, and declared Roberts elected. At the time of filing such petition the petitioner is required by the statute to deposit $10 with the clerk of the board of city canvassers. No question seems to be made in this case but that the petition was properly made and filed, and the money properly deposited. Its averments were sufficient to call for such action by the board of city canvassers as is authorized by the statute. The statute provides: "Upon filing such petition, making such deposit, and giving at least twelve hours' written notice thereof to the opposing candidate, by handing to such candidate a copy thereof, or, if such candidate cannot be found, by leaving such copy at the last place of residence, it shall be the duty of such board of canvassers to proceed to make an investigation of the facts set forth in said petition. For such purpose the board shall have power to cause the ballot boxes used in such election districts to be brought before them. The said board shall designate a member who shall be chairman of said committee. The candidate presenting such petition, and the candidate opposed thereto, shall each choose a member; and if such candidate, or either of them, decline to choose a member, then the board shall designate, and the three thus chosen shall constitute the committee to investigate the errors, mistakes, or frauds complained of." The statute thus provides that such committee shall without unnecessary delay proceed to open the ballot boxes and make a recount of the votes, and make return of the result to the board of city canvassers, who are to "accept the same as correct, anything in the previous returns" from such township, ward, or district to the contrary notwithstanding. No question appears upon the sufficiency of the notice, and upon the appearance of the parties interested before the board of city canvassers. The question of fraud in the count was abandoned by the relator, and he only asked for a recount upon the other specific grounds stated in his petition; and this we think he was entitled to under the mandatory provisions of the statute. The charter of the city of Port Huron, at the time the vote was taken for the relator for alderman, contained no provision making either the board of city canvassers, or the common council of the city, judges of the election or of the qualification of the alderman. It was intended by the law of 1887 to give an aggrieved party by the action of the inspectors of election and the board of city canvassers the right to a recount of the votes cast for and against him for the office for which he was a candidate, in the first instance at least, if he should desire it, without resort to proceedings by quo warranto, and no reason is discovered why the law may not be resorted to by the relator in this case. The mandamus will therefore be granted requiring the board of city canvassers of the city of Port Huron, whose duty it was to take the necessary action to secure a recount of the votes cast for and against the relator at the election held in the Third ward of said city on the 2d day of April, 1888, for the office of alderman of said ward, to meet in said city within 10 days after a copy of the writ shall have been served upon them, and take such action as is required of them by the provisions of act No. 208, Laws 1887, for the purpose of securing such recount of said votes. No costs will be given. CHAMPLIN, MORSE, and LONG, JJ., concurred. CAMPBELL, J., did not sit. LUTON, Pros. Atty., v. NEWAYGO, Circuit Judge. POOR AND POOR LAWS-BRINGING PAUPER INTO STATE-CRIMINAL PROSECUTION-AF- In a prosecution under the Michigan statutes for bringing a pauper from another state, the affidavit upon which the warrant is issued is fatally defective which fails to state the facts or circumstances relied upon to show that the person is a pauper, and was brought into the county with intent to make it chargeable with his support. Application for mandamus. Swan Nelson was arrested and prosecuted before a justice of the peace in the county of Newago, to recover a penalty alleged to have been incurred by him for bringing a pauper from another state into said county, with the intent to make such pauper a charge to said county, contrary to law, and was convicted. He appealed to the circuit court, where, on motion of his counsel, the case was dismissed, on the ground that the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued was defective, in not stating the facts positively relied upon to show that the person claimed to be a pauper was poor and indigent in the state from which she came, and was brought into the county with the intent to make it chargeable for her support. Mandamus was asked to require the circuit judge to set aside the order of dismissal, and to proceed with the trial of the cause. George Luton, for relator. W. D. Fuller, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Held, the writ must be denied; that the affidavit is insufficient to give the court jurisdiction. The affiant neither states the facts positively, nor gives the circumstances upon which he has good reason to believe they exist. This must be done, in order to give the court jurisdiction. ELLIS, Pros. Atty., v. HUTCHINSON, Justice of the Peace. (Supreme Court of Michigan. May 10, 1888.) * * CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-TITLES OF LAWS-CHATTEL MORTGAGES-REMOVAL OF MORTGAGED GOODS. Act Mich. No. 157, Laws 1887, entitled "An act to amend section 1 of act No. 43 of the Laws of 1873, and to repeal section 2 of said act," and providing for the punishment of persons embezzling mortgaged goods and chattels, is in direct violation of Const. Mich. art. 4, § 20, which requires that "no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be embraced in its title," as the sections referred to in the title of the act make no reference to chattel mortgages. Application for mandamus. Act Mich. No. 157, Laws 1887, is as follows: "An act to amend section one of act number forty-three of the Laws of eighteen hundred and seventy-three, the same being compiler's section nine thousand one hundred and eighty-eight of Howell's Annotated Statutes, relative to the fraudulent removal or embezzlement of property leased or under contract of purchase, and to repeal section two of said act, the same being compiler's section nine thousand one hundred and eighty-nine of Howell's Annotated Statutes. Section 1. The people of the state of Michigan enact that section one of act number fortythree of the Laws of eighteen hundred and seventy-three, the same being compiler's section nine thousand one hundred and eighty-eight of Howell's Annotated Statutes, be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows: (§ 9188.) Section 1. Any person who shall fraudulently embezzle, remove, conceal, or dispose of any goods or chattels, mortgaged, leased, or let to him by any mortgage, written lease, or other instrument in writing, intended to operate as a mortgage or lease, or any personal property of another in his possession under a mortgage or contract of purchase not yet fulfilled, and any person in possession of such goods or chattels, knowing them to be subject to such lease, contract of purchase, or mortgage, who shall so embezzle, remove, conceal, or dispose of the same, with the intent to injure or defraud the lessor, mortgagee, or owner thereof, which shall be of the value of twenty-five dollars or more, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not more than two years, or by fine not more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months. If the property embezzled, removed, concealed, or disposed of, as aforesaid, shall not be of the value of twenty-five dollars, the person thus offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months, or both, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 2. Section two of act number forty-three of the Laws of eighteen hundred and seventy-three, the same being compiler's section nine thousand one hundred and eighty-nine of Howell's Annotated Statutes, is hereby repealed. Approved June 7, 1887." A. A. Ellis, for relator. Davis & Nichols, for respondent. SHERWOOD, C. J. On the 17th day of April, 1888, Albert F. Lehman was arrested, charged with the offense of embezzling property upon which he had given a chattel mortgage. He was taken before Frederick S. Hutchinson, Esq., a justice of the peace in the city of Ionia, for examination. The arrest was made under act No. 157, Laws 1887. Objection being made by counsel for respondent to proceeding further in the matter, on the ground that the act is unconstitutional, the respondent refused to continue the examination further without the direction of this court, and therefore the relator applied for an order to show cause why peremptory mandamus should not issue requiring respondent to proceed with the examination. In return to this order he insists that the act is in violation of section 20 of article 4 of the constitution, which requires that "no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be embraced in its title." The statute under which the prosecution is sought to be maintained will be found in the statement. The title to the act reads as follows: "An act to amend section one of act number forty-three of the Laws of 1873, the same being compiler's section nine thousand one hundred and eightyeight of Howell's Annotated Statutes, relative to the fraudulent removal or embezzlement of property leased, or under contract of purchase, and to repeal section two of said act, the same being compiler's section nine thousand one hundred and eighty-nine of Howell's Annotated Statutes." The section referred to to be amended makes no reference to chattel mortgaged property, and the section referred to to be repealed merely names the court to take jurisdiction of cases arising under the act amended, which does not relate to the mortgage lien at all. Act No. 73, Laws 1861, contains a single section, and has for its object, as well as provides for, the punishment of persons fraudulently disposing of chattel mortgaged property. See How. St. § 9187. This act was expressly repealed by act No. 154, Laws 1887, and which had no other object. This was done the same day of the passage of the act under which the respondent is prosecuted. It will be observed that nowhere in the title to the act in question is it intimated that chattel mortgage contracts were considered in the proposed act, nor that a violation of such contract was to make the offender liable to criminal punishment; but, on the contrary, the object stated in the title is clearly to punish persons for acts committed to property held under contracts of an entirely different character, and with which the lien created by a chattel mortgage cannot be classed and has no place, and it is very evident the title to the act does not include any such contract, and it was no part of the object expressed therein. And the provisions of the act legislating upon the subject of mortgage lien, and providing penalties for its violation in the manner stated therein, is too broad for its title, and is, so far as it relates to "chattel mortgaged" property, a violation of the provision of the constitution referred to, and the justice was right in so holding. The writ will therefore be denied. CHAMPLIN, MORSE, and LONG, JJ., concurred. CAMPBELL, J., did not sit. In re MONTAgue. (Supreme Court of Michigan. May 10, 1888.) CRIMINAL LAW-APPEAL-RIGHT TO BAIL PENDING APPEAL. Under How. St. Mich. § 9578, providing that, upon the signing of the bill of exceptions, all further proceedings in the circuit court shall be stayed, unless it shall clearly appear to the judge that such exceptions are frivolous, where an appellant under bail is arrested and sentenced, and the court finds that his appeal pending raises questions of a serious nature, that court has no further jurisdiction except to take bail; and a refusal to admit to bail, in a bailable case, is null and void. Application for habeas corpus. This was a petition for habeas corpus by Alexander Montague. CAMPBELL, J. The prisoner, after conviction, took measures to obtain a bill of exceptions, which was signed by the circuit judge, and removed, in the proper way, to this court. He was already under bail for appearance in due time for sentence. Subsequently the circuit judge, without any order from this court, had him arrested and sentenced, the proceedings still pending in this court, and refused bail, although finding that the questions were of a serious nature on the record returned here. The statute (section 9578, How. St.) declares that, "upon the signing of such exceptions, all further proceedings in that court shall be stayed, unless it shall clearly appear to the judge that such exceptions are frivolous, immaterial, or intended only for delay; and in that case judgment may be entered and sentence awarded in such manner as the court shall deem reasonable, notwithstanding the allowance of such exceptions." By section 9580 the party who files exceptions is entitled to be released on bail except when the offense is not of a bailable nature. The object of the statute is to secure the right of bail until the conviction is determined in this court, unless the circuit judge has it made to appear to him clearly that the exceptions are frivolous, immaterial, or intended only for delay, and then he may sentence. He can only sentence on a finding to that effect. But, after sentence and writ of error, the respondent may be admitted to bail on error, on the allowance of a circuit or supreme court judge, or on habeas corpus by this court. It is not the policy of our laws to put obstacles in the way of the liberty of parties who are seeking legal review, unless it is manifestly frivolous. When the circuit judge declared the questions to be serious, he thereby adjudicated that the case was not a clearly frivolous one, and the law itself continued the proceedings until they should be finally disposed of here. The case, thus continued, passed beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court, and that court has no further concern with it except to let to bail until the mandate of this court restores it. A judgment rendered during that interval is a judgment beyond the authority of that court, and absolutely null and void. The prisoner is entitled to his discharge on bail, and to be kept entitled to the same amount of bail, on proper sureties, should the original sureties surrender him or be properly changed. The other justices concurred. TINKER v. HURST. (Supreme Court of Michigan. May 11, 1888.) BANKRUPTCY-COMPOSITION WITH CREDITORS-NOTE FOR BALANCE. Where an insolvent, desiring to obtain his discharge in bankruptcy by a composition with his creditors, agreed to execute his notes to a creditor for the balance of his debt, the notes given in pursuance of such agreement are void. Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county; Look, Judge. Assumpsit by Lowell M. Tinker against James T. Hurst. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. SHERWOOD, C. J. The declaration in this cause is upon all the common counts in assumpsit, and specially upon a promissory note made by defendant to plaintiff for the payment of $1,624, three years from date, with interest, and dated the 6th day of July, 1876; also for a balance due on an account of $87. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice under his plea that he would show the note was given without consideration, and in fraud of his composition in bankruptcy. Trial was had in the Wayne circuit court by jury before Judge Look. The claim upon the account was admitted, and verdict and judgment were rendered for that amount for the plaintiff. His claim on the note was rejected, and he now brings error to this court. From the testimony it appears that on the 28th day of June, 1875, Hurst failed, and filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy; that Tinker |