360 Mass. 853

October 7, 1971

Wallant seeks, by mandamus, to compel the registrars to certify certain signatures so that he may be nominated as a candidate for mayor in an election to be held in November, 1971. The registrars have certified 272 signatures. Wallant requires 279 certified signatures. We heard the case, as did the trial judge (who refused to issue the writ) on a statement of agreed facts amounting to a case stated. He ruled (on grounds more specific than those adopted by us) that none of the contested signatures was signed "substantially as registered" within the meaning of G. L. c. 53, Section 7, as amended by St. 1971, c. 512. We recognize that this 1971 statute (entitled "An Act liberalizing the requirement that a voter signing a nomination paper sign as he is registered") was intended to relax the requirements for signature certification. It was enacted, however, in a form less helpful to Wallant's position than the bill originally filed. See 1971 Senate Bill No. 519. Of the contested signatures less than the required seven seem to us even arguably "substantially as [the signer was] registered." Each of these was somewhat inaccurate. We assume the most liberal interpretation of the revised Section 7 consistent with the apparently continuing legislative intention to preserve the integrity of the nomination process. Even upon that assumption, certification of each other contested signature would require some separate investigation by the registrars to make certain that the signature was that of a registered voter. We think that the amended Section 7 requires no such investigation. Because the doubtful signatures, in any event, would not suffice to entitle Wallant to a certificate of nomination (see Sharpe v. Registrars of Voters of Northampton, 342 Mass. 620 , 622-624), we need not now consider the precise interpretation of the 1971 statute or discuss in detail the deficiencies of the other signatures mentioned in the case stated.

Order for judgment affirmed.


360 Mass. 853

October 22, 1971

In this action of contract, there was evidence which would permit the following findings. Gauthier, a union carpenter, had been working for the defendant (Company) in this country at substantially union wages for eighteen months to two years. He agreed to work for Company in Tunisia for "$200 a week clear for forty hours work" plus an expense allowance and certain perquisites. While in Tunisia he began working on Saturdays, and later also on Sundays, at one time a seven day week, ten hours a day. There was no express arrangement for overtime or claim therefor at the time the work was done. A Superior Court judge found for Company on count 1 seeking $3,264 for overtime work and labor furnished at Company's request, but found for Gauthier in the sum of $948 on count 2, seeking recovery of the "fair value" of the overtime work. The only exceptions argued are to the judge's failure to rule (a) that there was insufficient evidence to permit a finding for Gauthier on count 2, and (b) that Gauthier had failed to prove ascertainable damages. Although the confused and conflicting evidence would have permitted a finding for Company on count 2, the judge was warranted in inferring from that evidence that Gauthier expected to be paid and Company expected to pay him the fair value of his overtime work. Also, there was sufficient evidence of the amount of this overtime work and of prevailing

Page 854

union wages for such work to permit the judge to assess at least the damages awarded by him.

Exceptions overruled.