Citation Numbers: 187 A. 383, 108 Vt. 288
Judges: POWERS, C.J.
Filed Date: 10/6/1936
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto, brought by certain residents of the town of Randolph against that town and certain of its officers. The purpose of it is to establish the illegality of the negative vote of the town at its last annual meeting on the questions of selling intoxicating liquors in the town during the ensuing year, and to have declared a correction of the announced result of such vote, in effect turning *Page 290
it into an affirmative vote. The petition is demurred to. It is, therefore, to be tested by the rules applicable to ordinary civil actions. State v. Watson,
It appears that the meeting referred to was regularly called and held on the day appointed by law; that the warning therefor contained appropriate articles relative to the licensing of the sale of malt and spirituous liquors as required by No. 1 of the Acts of 1934. Before proceeding with the business of the meeting, the moderator announced that no one could vote on the liquor questions unless his poll tax was paid prior to February 15, 1936. Conforming their action to this ruling, these petitioners and others refrained from tendering their ballots on these questions, although they were qualified in all respects except this: Their poll taxes had not been paid. They were in favor of the granting of licenses for the sale of malt and spirituous liquors, and would have so voted. If their votes had been received, the result would have been reversed, and such licenses would have been authorized.
The basic merit of the petitioners' case depends wholly upon their claim that the votes of these delinquent taxpayers were illegally refused. If they are right about this, other questions raised by the demurrer will stand for consideration; but if they are wrong about it, such questions will require no attention. We therefore proceed at once to the consideration of this vital question.
The petitioners place much reliance upon Martin v. Fullam,
It is a canon of statutory construction that an act of the Legislature is to be given effect according to the intention of the lawgiver, which intention is to be determined by the language used when read in the light of the attending circumstances and the object sought to be attained. It seems plain to us that it was the manifest purpose of the Legislature to allow the towns in the State to speak on the liquor questions as towns, and to give expression to their option in "town meetings" as distinguished from "freemen's meetings." It necessarily follows that those whose votes are receivable must be persons qualified to vote in town meetings.
We hold that the moderator correctly applied the law and properly excluded those whose poll taxes had not been paid as required by the statute.
Petition dismissed with costs.