12. Griffen vs. Wall, 32 Ala. 149. 13. Talkington vs. Turner, 71 Ill. 234. 14. Stimpson vs. Breed, - and R. (Mass. El. Cas.) 260. 15. People vs. Thacker, 7 Laws (N. Y. 274); Territory vs. Pyle, 1 Oregon 149; People vs. Miller, 16 Mich. 56. 16. Beall vs. Albert, 159 Ill. 127; Newton vs. Newell, 26 Minn. 529. 17. Murphy vs. Bottle, 155 Ill. 182; Coglar vs. Beard, 65 Cal. 58; Gooding vs. Wilson, Smith El. Cas. 79. 18. Hughes vs. Hartman, 23 Oregon 482; Apple vs. Barcroft, 168 Ill. 649. 19. Kingery vs. Berry, 94 Ill. 515. 20. 23 Oregon 981. 21. Newark's Case, 1 Fras El. Cas. 277. 26. Norris vs. Handley, Smith El. Cas. 73. Section 58. Waiver of Right to Contest the Legality of an Election by Participating Therein That a voter, not himself a candidate for office, cannot be held to have waived the right to contest the legality of an election through his taking part in the election, is held in all the decisions which refer to this question.1 In State ex rel. Birchmore vs. State Board of Canvassers:2 the court said, on this point: "Therefore this election must be held invalid unless, as relator contends the respondents have waived their right to contest the election by taking part in it without objection to the arrangements. "By waiver is meant the intentional relinquishment of a known right, or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such a right." "From the nature of the doctrine it may and seems generally to be applied to all rights to which the party is legally entitled. A limitation, however, is usually recognized, and where such waiver would be against public policy it is not allowed to be operative. Would such a waiver as is claimed here by the relator be against public policy? The provision in the Constitution requiring popular elections to be by ballot had in view of the purity of elections and the prevention of intimidation of voters at the polls. From earliest times such results have been recognized as highly beneficial to municipalities and commonwealths. While it might appear that primarily the object was to secure benefits to electors, yet we think this purpose can only be regarded as a means to an end. With the right of the individual elector secure, necessarily it must follow that the State's welfare in this respect would be safeguarded. To attempt to enumerate the advantages of a well-regulated franchise would unnecessarily prolong this opinion, yet many of them must be evident to the most casual observer. Therefore, to hold that the respondents in this case are estopped from contesting the election because they cast their ballots in the election without protest at the time, we think would be an invasion of the integrity of the franchise system of the State." It has also been held, that the members of a county canvassing board of election returns, who had canvassed the vote on a county seat question, had not waived, thereby, their right to deny their own right to act in the matter.3 Candidates, however, may be estopped from contesting the legality of an election in which they participated and were defeated. Thus, it has been held that a person who was a candidate for a nomination at his party caucus could not afterwards object to the regularity of such caucus because votes of persons not members of the party were received thereat, where he was cognizant of such fact at the time of the caucus, but made no objection.4 5 But, in Smith vs. Holt, it was held that a candidate who was duly elected to office, at a legal election, was not estopped from accepting and holding such office, for the full term, on account of the fact that he had taken part in an election for this office improperly held the previous year. Notes 1. Elliott vs. Burke, 113 Ky. 479, 68 S. W. 445; State vs. Barton, 58 Kan. 709, 51 Pac. Rep. 218. 2. 78 S. Car. 461. 3. State vs. Whitney, 12 Wash. 420, 41 Pac. Rep. 189. 4. Re Winton Nominations, 2 Lock Leg. N. (Pa.) 13. 5. 24 Kan. 773. CHAPTER XI CRIMES RELATING TO ELECTIONS Section 59. Fraud in Registration Wherever the registration of voters is required, fraudulent registration is always a crime on the part of the person wrongfully registering. Where a person knowingly registers at two election places, a criminal intent is not a necessary element of the crime.1 A person is not put twice in jeopardy for the same offense by being tried for fraudulent registration, after having been acquitted of this offense, being tried for illegal voting at the election for which the registration was made.2 In some States there are statutory provisions for the punishment of all persons who cause, allow, or induce another to register fraudulently.3 The Revised Statute of the United States1 provides for the punishment of any person who "does any unlawful act to secure registration for himself or for any other person." A registration officer will always be criminally liable for knowingly permitting fraudu |