Harwich
Harwich
Opinion of the Court
Two returns were received from the town of Harwich, certified by two different sets of selectmen, by one of which, Ebenezer Broadbrooks, Jr., and John Dillingham, and by the other, Solomon Freeman and John Snow, were returned as the representatives from that town.
The committee on the returns, to whom also were committed sundry documents relative to the election in Harwich, made a preliminary report, upon which, the members returned were restrained from voting until their respective claims to a seat should be determined.
By the papers on file, it appears, that, at the annual town-meeting of the town of Harwich, held at the north parish meeting-house therein, on Wednesday, the nineteenth of March previous, for the choice of town officers, three selectmen and a town clerk were chosen, together with some other town officers, and the meeting was then adjourned to Satur
The committee, upon these facts reported, that the election of Broadbrooks and Dillingham was legal, and that of Freeman and Snow illegal, and their report was agreed to.
21 J. H. 10.
By st. 1785, c. 75, which was in force when this case was decided, selectmen had authority, ($$ 2, 5) in their warrant, for a town-meeting, to fix upon the place of meeting, which was only required tobe in the same town. The Rev. Sts. c. 15, §§ 19, 21, contain similar provisions. By the latter, § 25, a town-meeting may be adjourned to such place, within the same town, as the meeting shall determine. But there was not in the statute of 1785, nor is there in the llev. Sts., any express provision for a change of the place of meeting, after an adjournment, by the authority of the selectmen alone.
21 J. H. 36, 56.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HARWICH
- Status
- Published