State ex rel. Bassett v. Renick

• Decision Date: 28 February 1866
• Citation: 37 Mo. 270
• Parties: STATE ex rel. JONATHAN M. BASSETT, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. RENICK, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 Mo. 270

STATE ex rel. JONATHAN M. BASSETT, Plaintiff and Petitioner,

v.WILLIAM P. RENICK, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Febuary Term, 1866.

Petition for Mandamus.

J. M. Bassett, in person.

I. That the return of the defendant shows no legal cause for refusing to sign said bond; and said return admitting the truth of the facts in the petition, the writ of mandamus must be made peremptory according to the prayer of petitioner. (35 Mo. 198.)

II. That the city council of St. Joseph have no means of ascertaining the true number of qualified voters in the city at the time said special election was held, except by relying upon the number of votes polled at said special election as compared with the number of votes polled at the general election for city officers immediately preceding.

III. There having been more votes polled at said special election than at the preceding general election for city officers, and nearly all of said votes being cast for said ordinance, the city council were authorized to consider said ordinance adopted by two-thirds of the qualified voters of said city.

IV. No voter was qualified to vote at said special election without first taking the constitutional oath, and there being no registry law by which the qualified voters in the city could be ascertained, the votes cast at the last election for city officers, and the votes cast at said subsequent election, furnish the only correct criterion to ascertain the number of qualified voters in the city at the time said special election was held.

V. The case of the State of Missouri v. Julius Winkelmeier, (reported in 35 Mo. 103,) does not militate against the positions here assumed. It is an affirmance of the principle for plaintiff, the Supreme Court having taken the number of qualified votes polled at a general election in St. Louis as a criteron to judge of the number of qualified voters then in said city.

VI. The city council acting upon the evidence of the number of votes polled at said general and special elections, and having sanctioned said ordinance by issuing bonds under it, and due notice of said election having been given, the action of said council is conclusive. At said special election all persons qualified to vote were called upon to do so, and this court will not now listen to objections that two-thirds of the qualified voters of said city did not vote for said ordinance. (People v. City of Rochester, 21 Barb., N. Y., 671.)

HOLMES,...