Applegate v. Eagan
| Decision Date | 31 October 1881 |
| Parties | APPLEGATE, Appellant, v. EAGAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court.--HON. G. D. BURGESS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
C. A. Winslow for appellant.
Kinley & Wallace for respondent.
This is a statutory proceeding instituted by plaintiff contesting the election of defendant Eagan to the office of clerk of the circuit court of Chariton county, at the general election held on the 2nd day of November, 1880, for State, county and township officers.
The notice of contest, among others, alleged in substance the following as ground for contest: (1) That all the ballots cast at said election for defendant Eagan, were fraudulent and void, because said ballots in addition to having all the names of the candidates for the various offices to be filled, contained a ballot for and against township organization, and for and against restraining swine from running at large, with the following caption: “Erase the clause you do not favor.” (2) That on the said ballots the office for which Eagan was voted to fill was designated: “For circuit clerk and recorder.” (3) That defendant did, on the day of election, and some days prior thereto, cause to be circulated, false and fraudulent statements and printed circulars, with the intent to influence votes, said statements and circulars being to the effect that if any voter erased the name of Eagan from the printed tickets and ballots which had said name printed thereon as a candidate for the office of clerk of the circuit court, and substituted the name of Wm. C. Applegate for said office, such ballot could not be counted, and such person would lose his vote; and that defendant also printed and circulated a fraudulent circular, over the name of the Democratic executive committee, headed: “Beware of a fraudulent ticket with the name of W. C. Applegate for circuit clerk instead of the name of James A. Eagan,” well knowing that there was no fraudulent ticket with the name of said Applegate on it circulated or used at said election; that by reason of these things at least 300 voters were deceived and influenced into voting for Eagan, who otherwise would have voted for contestant, Applegate, and thereby given him a majority of all the votes cast.
Defendant moved the court to strike out the above three grounds of contest, which motion the court sustained, and this action of the court is assigned here for error by plaintiff on his appeal.
It is insisted by counsel that the first ground of contest was well taken, and that all the ballots, for the reason therein mentioned, are condemned as fraudulent and void by reason of section 5493, Revised Statutes, which is as follows:
If this section of the statute was the only one to be consulted and applied in determining the validity of the ballots sought to be impeached by the notice, there might be something in the point made by counsel. But in view of what is said in sections 7429, 7430, 7407, 7408, Revised Statutes, we think the point made is not maintainable. These sections are as follows:
Section 7429. At any general election that may be holden in the several counties of the State, the qualified voters in any county may vote for or against township organization, as provided by this article.
Section 7430. The county court, on petition of one hundred legal voters of said county, shall cause to be submitted to the voters of the county the question of township organization under this article, by the ballot to be written or printed, “For township organization,” or “Against township organization,” to be canvassed and returned in like manner as votes for county officers.
Section 7407. The legal voters of any county in this State shall have the right, at any general election, or at any special election called for the purpose, to vote to restrain swine from running at large in such county, and if a majority of votes cast at any such election shall be for restraining swine from running at large, then swine shall not be allowed to run at large.
Section 7408. Upon petition of one hundred freeholders of any county in this State, asking for the same, the county court shall submit to the qualified voters of such county, at a general or special election, as prescribed in this chapter, the question of restraining swine from running at large.
Section 7410. There shall be written or printed on each ballot voted at any such election, either of the following sentences: “For restraining swine from running at large.” “Against restraining swine from running at large.” Any such election, the voting thereat, making returns thereof, and casting up the result shall be governed in all respects by the laws applicable to general or township elections for county or township officers.
Under these sections when a county court makes an order submitting one or both of the above questions at a general election, it is clearly the right of every qualified voter to cast his ballot at such election, either for or against township organization, and for or against swine running at large; and, as under section 5493, supra, each voter can only cast at such election one ballot, when that is done his power and right to vote at such election...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Russell v. Highway Commission
...In an Arkansas case, Hodges v. Dawdy, 104 Ark. 583, 149 S.W. 656, evidence of this sort was disregarded altogether. [See also Applegate v. Eagan, 74 Mo. 258, 265.] Without going that far in this case, and not forgetting the return alleges the people did believe and rely on the statements ma......
-
State ex rel. Russell v. State Highway Com'n
...In an Arkansas case, Hodges v. Dawdy, 104 Ark. 583, 149 S.W. 656, evidence of this sort was disregarded altogether. [See also Applegate v. Eagan, 74 Mo. 258, 265.] Without going that far in this case, and not forgetting return alleges the people did believe and rely on the statements made t......
- State v. Ward
-
State Ex Inf. Barrett v. Imhoff
...was no fraud of any sort; that a timely challenge is necessary to change the result of an honest count. In the early case of Applegate v. Eagan, 74 Mo. 258, court held that where ballots cast at a general election for state, county and township officers contained, in addition to the names o......