In re Whitney — 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 581

Majority

p. 581

In the Matter of the Application of Charles S. Whitney and Others, Appellants, for a Writ of Mandamus to George Kinkel and Others, Supervisors of Kings County, Respondents.

Headnote

Division of a county into Assembly districts— division made in reference to citizen population.

It is impossible to divide a county into eighteen Assembly districts and to have an exact mathematical equality in the divisions as to the population therein, and where the citizen population practically bears the same relation to the alien ■ population in all the districts, it is immaterial whether or not the supervisors of the county divided the county into Assembly districts in reference to citizen population only.

Appeal by the relators, Charles S. Whitney and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 2oth day of August, 1893, denying the relators’ motion for a writ of mandamus.

Jesse Johnson and F. F. Bcvrncvrd,, for the relators, appellants.

John B. Meyenborg, for the respondents.

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,^[1] now before the court.

* See ante, page 545.

p. 582

The only point in -this case not raised in the Bcárd case is as to whether the defendants were bound to divide the county into eighteen Assembly districts equal in reference to citizen population as nearly 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.

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

DyeMAN, J., concurred; CulleN, J., not sitting-.

Order affirmed, with costs.