
    In re AKIN et al. In re TOWNSEND.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    March 19, 1912.)
    Elections (§ 135) — Nominations and Primaries — Meeting of Party’s County Committee—Notice.
    No proceeding having been taken, as provided by Election Law (Laws 1911, c. 891) § 40, relating to nominations and primaries, to remove persons elected as members of a political party’s county committee, a meet-tug of such committee to desi/gnate canSidafces for party nomination, without service on four of such «persons of ttihe notice required by such law to fee given members of the committee, ¡is mot duly organized.
    [BcL Note.—For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. § 119; Dec. Dig. $ 138.*]
    Hairsclibecg, -J., -dissenting.
    Appeal from Special Term, Putnam County.
    Two ¡applications—¡one by 'Charles E. Akin and Thomas O’Brien, fer an <order 'directing iflie custodian of the primary records to strike from tits record ¡certain deságnatiem of candidates; the other by AsIbury <C. Townsend, -as •chairman ¡of the Democratic County Committee <o"f Putnam Catmty, for an order (directing said! custodian to file certain •designations c©f ¡candidates. From an order denying the first appli-cation, ¡and 'granting the second (133 N. Y. Supp. 881), said Akin •and'O’Brien 'and Samuel B. Crane appeal. Reversed,"and application <©fi 'Townsend (denied.
    Argued before HIRSCHBERG, BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and WOODWARD, !JJ.
    I. J. Eeaucirias '(Wtii. Church Osborn, on the brief), for appellants,
    (Clayton Ryder, ¡for respondent.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

It is conceded that notice of the meeting of the Democratic ¡.county committee for the purpose of designating candD •dates for party -nominations was not served upon four persons origin imlly ¡élected as ¡members of that committee, as required by the Elec-lion Daw, ¡relating to nominations and primaries (Laws 1911, c. 891). As no-proceedings to remove fire persons so elected as members of such •committee 'have 'been taken, as required by section 40 of said law, they ■were (entitled to -such notice, and the said meeting was never duly organized.

Order reversed, -and application denied, without cost.

BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and WOODWARD, JJ„ concur. HIRSCHBERG, J., dissents, on the ground that, as a majority of the committee were present and acted, the failure to notify the four members of the meeting may be disregarded as an informality.  