ELECTION LAW. No re-registration is required in townships in fall of 1916. It is unlawful for the words "vote for, three" to be written or printed above candidates' name on ballots to be used at the general election. October 24, 1916. Hon. Edward N. Barnard, Prosecuting Attorney, Grand Rapids, Mich. Dear Sir:-This will acknowledge receipt of your communication of October 21st in which you ask for rulings upon the following matters, First-Whether or not there is any necessity for a re-registra tion in the townships. Second-When there are three candidates for an office as in the case of representatives to the state legislature, is it proper to write above these candidates' names "vote for three," and the same in regard to coroners, "vote for two." Replying to your first inquiry will state that it has been the ruling of this Department that a re-registration in the townships is not required. Replying to your second inquiry, I am of the opinion that writing the words "vote for three," as in the case of candidates for representatives to the state legislature, would be improper, and the same in regard to coroners. I am unable to find any provisions of the general election law which provides for the writing of words above candidates' names where there is more than one candidate for the same office. The general primary law makes such a provision and the official ballot so indicates that these words should be written above the candidates' names, but no such provision is contained in the general election law, and I am constrained to the opinion as just indicated. Mo-k-O Yours respectfully, COMPATIBILITY. County school examiners can lawfully hold the office of supervisor simultaneously. October 24, 1916. Mr. George R. Emerick, Harrisville, Michigan. Dear Sir:-I am in receipt of your letter of October 16th in which you ask to be advised if a member of the board of county school examiners would be eligible to the office of supervisor of a township in the same county. In reply to your communication I respectfully call your attention to certain provisions of Act 147 of the Public Acts of 1891. Section one of said act provides in part as follows: "At each annual meeting of the several boards of supervisors of the different counties of the state, the said several boards of supervisors shall appoint one examiner who shall hold his office for the period of two years from and after the first day of January following his or her election or until his successor shall have been appointed and qualified, and said examiner together with the commissioner of schools shall constitute the board of school examiners." Then follows certain qualifications which are prescribed in order to make such person eligible to the office of examiner. This same section also provides that in case a vacancy shall occur at any time in the office of school examiner, the judge of probate together with the board of school examiners of the county in which such vacancy shall have occurred, shall within ten days after the occurrence of such vacancy appoint some suitable person to fill such vacancy. Section ten of the same act provides that each member of the board of school examiners, other than the county commissioner, shall receive four dollars for each day employed in the duties of his office, and his actual and necessary traveling expenses incurred in the discharge of his official duties in his own county. In view of the provisions of the section above set forth it occurs to me that a county school examiner could lawfully hold the office of supervisor within his own county. It does not occur to me that the duties of the two offices are so conflicting as to make one a bar to the other. The most serious objection which could, perhaps, be raised is that a person would be a member of the body appointing one of its own members to another office within the county. This, however, is not obligatory in the least upon the board of supervisors and it is a matter of discretion and judgment upon their part as to whom they wish so appointed. I see no serious objection from the standpoint of public policy inasmuch as the compensation of the school examiner is fixed by statute and his expenses are taken care of in the same way. If the board of supervisors determined the compensation of the school examiner and had to pass upon his expenses, then an objection would no doubt be raised that would be vital. In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that a county school examiner may lawfully occupy the office of supervisor simultaneously. Yours respectfully, GRANT FELLOWS, Attorney General. Mo-k-O PUBLIC HEALTH. In an action to abate rendering plant, township board could not complain of injury beyond that of health of inhabitants residing in the community. Term "offensive to the inhabitants" construed. October 25, 1916. Mr. William C. Brown, Prosecuting Attorney, Lansing, Michigan. Dear Sir: You have recently requested my opinion upon certain questions growing out of the following situation: It seems that about two years ago a certain rendering plant purchased a small parcel of land in Lansing township and established itself therein for the purpose of slaughtering animals for human consumption. Recently the inhabitants residing in the vicinity of the slaughter house have made complaint to the township board of health that the odors emanating from said slaughter house are offensive, unhealthy and tend to deteriorate the value of their property. The board of health is inclined to take action to abate this slaughter house which, they claim, is a nuisance. Questions growing out of the same situation were recently presented by the secretary of the State board of health to this Department wherein it was ruled that a township board of health could invoke the aid of the Offensive Trades Act in removing the nuisance. You submit the following questions, "Assuming that an action is brought by the Township Board to abate such a nuisance, will they be able to ask the court to restrain the operation of this plant because there are odors and other conditions which tend to, or do injure certain nearby property owners in the enjoyment of the property, and which would cause the value of the property to be depreciated, although said odors and conditions cannot be shown to be injurious or at least tend to be injurious to public health. Second, Would an action brought in the name of such injured property owners be broader and more effective than actión brought by the Township? Third, What is meant by the term 'offensive to the inhabitants' as used in this statute when applied to an established institution, that is, how offensive should it be and to what or how many inhabitants must it be offensive in order that it may be restrained, or abated by proceeding in equity?" Replying to your first question I will state that I am of the opinion that the township board would not be able to ask the court to restrain the operation of this plant because there are odors and other difficulties which tend to, or do, injure certain nearby property owners in the enjoyment of their property. It seems to me that the township board could go no further than to ask the restraint of the operation of this plant upon the ground that the plant is injurious to public health. In other words, the township board has no property interests which would be affected by the continued operation of the plant, and would, therefore, have no right to go into a court of equity and ask for the enjoining of such a plant for this reason. The township board of health has interests only to the extent of the interests of the public health of the inhabitants residing in that community. It has no property interests which would be affected. Replying to your second inquiry would state that, for the reasons above given, I am of the opinion that an action brought in the name of the injured property owners would be broader and more effective than an action brought by the township board. The interests of the property owners are not confined solely to the health of the community but they do have certain property interests which, it seems to me, would be materially affected by a continuance of the rendering plant. No doubt such a plant in any community where property owners reside, tends to deteriorate the value of the property to a certain extent at least. The property owners have this added interest which could be presented to a court of equity in addition to the element of public health. Replying to your third inquiry, what is meant by the term "offensive to the inhabitants," would state that it seems to me that no line could be drawn which will indicate the number of inhabitants necessary to be affected which would give them relief. I am of the opinion, however, that in order to invoke the aid of sections 4456 and 4457 of the Compiled Laws of 1897, known as the Offensive Trades Statute, that it would be neces sary that such occupation be proved to be offensive to at least more than one inhabitant. Section 4458 of the same act provides a remedy for any person injured either in his comfort of the enjoyment of his estate by any such nuisance, but this section, no doubt, limits such an action to an individual. An action brought under either section is one which is cumulative and should be brought when it appears that such business is offensive to several. Just where the line is to be drawn is difficult to determine. Trusting that these suggestions will be of assistance to you, I am, Yours respectfully, Mo-k-O GRANT FELLOWS, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Are not required to canvass the vote under Act 28 of 1911. Necessary supplies for the election under said act should be furnished by the county election commissioners. October 30, 1916. Mr. F. M. Burwash, Prosecuting Attorney, Mt. Pleasant, Mich. Dear Sir:-I note from your letter of the 19th inst. that the board of supervisors of your county adopted a resolution at the general session to submit the question of raising $5,000 by tax for the purpose of providing a county detention home for juveniles. You state that the proceeding was taken under the provisions of Act 28 of the Public Acts of 1911, and request my views in answer to the following inquiries: "Is it necessary to have the board of supervisors canvass the vote? If it is necessary when can they do it, that is, is it necessary for them to meet in any limited number of days after the election to canvass this vote or can they do it at their next meeting which will occur in January, 1917? Should the election supplies furnished to the different boards contain separate envelopes and forms for reports for the vote on the above proposition?" The statute under which the proceeding was had declares that the ballots cast at the election "shall be received, counted, canvassed and returned in the manner now governing for the election of county officers." It occurs to me that this provision must be deemed to be controlling and that in consequence the vote should be canvassed in the manner provided by the general election law. I believe that sections 2492 and 2493 of the Compiled Laws of 1897, to which you have directed my attention, should be regarded as controlling in a given instance only in the event that the statute under which such proceeding is had does not contain any specific provision along this line to indicate that the legislature intended some other course to be followed. This covers, I believe your first and second questions. It seems to be the intent of the statute that the necessary supplies for use in connection with the election shall be furnished by the board of election commissioners. It is true that express mention is made only of the ballots; but it must be presumed, of course, that the legislature intended that necessary blank forms and envelopes should be procured from some source. Inasmuch as no duty along this line is imposed upon any official or board other than the county election commissioners, I am impressed that the duty of the latter must be regarded as a general one and in consequence as embracing the furnishing of incidental supplies as well as the ballots. Ca-v-O Very respectfully, ELECTION LAW. Use of slips considered. October 30, 1916. Mr. Hiram R. Smith, Prosecuting Attorney, Roscommon, Mich. Dear Sir:-I have before me your letter of the 19th inst. in which you submit a number of questions involving the use of slips at the general election. I note your statement that a candidate for a certain office on the ticket intends to use printed slips or pasters and that it is anticipated that a number of questions will come up in the canvassing of the votes. The provisions of section 3636 of the Compiled Laws of 1897 are controlling in the matter. Said section provides in part as follows: "If the elector wishes to vote for a candidate not on any ticket, he must write or place the name of such candidate on his ticket opposite the name of the office, and make a cross in the circle under the party name * * # If the name of any person who is not a candidate on any ticket is written or placed on the party ticket opposite the name of the office, and there is a cross in the circle under the party name, the name so written or placed shall be counted one vote for the person so mentioned whether the original name on the party ticket is erased or not excepting cases where there is a cross in the square before the name of some opposing candidate on some other party ticket. If no cross is placed in the circle under the party name, a cross in the square before the name of any candidate shall be deemed a vote for such candidate except in cases where the elector votes for more candidates for the same officer than are to be elected." Of course, these provisions must be construed in connection with the rest of the section, and also other provisions of the general law that may have a bearing in a particular case. It occurs to me that in the event that a slip is placed over the name of the candidate and no cross is placed either before it or in the circle at the head of the column, the ballot cannot be counted at all. In other words, the elector has failed to indicate his choice and the fact that he has affixed the slip is not sufficient in itself to entitle the ballot to be counted as one vote for the per |