It is not necessary to discuss the questions raised in this case, as they are involved in the case of Baird and others against the same defendants now before the court. 27 N. Y. Supp. *658535. The only point in this case not raised in the Baird Case is as to whether the defendants were bound to divide the county into 18 assembly districts, equally, in reference to citizen population, as near as attainable. Assuming such to be the construction of the law, it does not appear that there is any such material discrepancy in this case as will justify setting aside the apportionment. It would be impossible to have an exact mathematical equality, and the law does not require it. The court below has found that that makes no difference, as the citizen population practically bears the same relation to the alien population in all the assembly districts, and we are forced to the same conclusion. Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
27 N.Y.S. 657 •
75 Hun, 581
(75 Hun, 581.)
In re WHITNEY et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
February 12, 1894.)
Appeal from special term, Kings county.
Application by Charles S. Whitney and others, constituting the board of supervisors of Kings county, to require respondents to divide said county into assembly districts, as required by law. The application was denied, and petitioners appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before DYKMAY, PRATT, and CULLEY, JJ.
Jesse Johnson and Frederick E. Barnard, for appellants.
John B. Meyenborg, for respondents.
In re Whitney
27 N.Y.S. 657 •
75 Hun, 581
Case Details
27 N.Y.S. 657
75 Hun, 581
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!