Ashby v. Patrick, 16.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 16.,16. |
| Citation | 28 S.W.2d 55,181 Ark. 859 |
| Parties | ASHBY et al. v. PATRICK et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Woodruff County; W. D. Davenport, Judge.
Election contest by Mrs. James Patrick and others against J. I. Ashby and others. From judgment declaring the election void, and that neither plaintiffs nor defendants were elected, the defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Ross Mathis, of Cotton Plant, for appellants.
Hunter special school district of Woodruff county, Ark., is a special school district in the town of Hunter, and at the May election for directors of said district in 1928 the two persons elected failed to qualify by taking and filing the oath of office within the time prescribed by statute, and for that reason there was a vacancy in the board. School District v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511, 13 S. W. 132; Boyett v. Cowling, 78 Ark. 494, 94 S. W. 682. At the May election following there were five directors to be elected. Just why the other vacancy occurred in the board is not shown. Two directors were to be elected for a three-year term, two for a two-year term, and one for a one-year term. There were rival sets of candidates.
On the face of the returns appellants were elected, and a contest was filed with the county board of education by the appellee contesting the election on the ground, among others, that a majority of the qualified electors had voted for the appellees. This contest was heard by the board, the votes were recounted and the ballot purged, resulting in the elimination of twenty-two votes cast for the appellants and eight for the appellees, and, after the elimination of these votes, it was found that the appellants still had a majority of the votes cast at the election, and they were declared duly elected. From this order an appeal was taken to the circuit court, which court, at the conclusion of the evidence, held that the election was void because of the form of the ballot, and judgment was rendered declaring neither the appellants nor the appellees elected. From that judgment is this appeal.
As the school district was a special school district within an incorporated town, the election is governed by sections 8963 to 8971 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, inclusive, and there is no form of ballot prescribed therein. Therefore, if the ballot voted on was such as not to mislead the electors, but to give them an opportunity to express their will, it was sufficient. The ballot in question was so prepared that the names of the rival sets of candidates were placed thereon as follows:
For School Directors
For 3 Year Term (Vote for Two)
J. I. Ashby
J. W. Burns
===========
For 2 Year Term (Vote for Two)
H. O. Penrose
W. P. Dawson
=========
For 1 Year Term (Vote for One)
Garvin Melvin
----------------------------------------------
For 3 Year Term (Vote for Two)
Mrs. Jas. Patrick
Mr. H. F. Suhr
===========
For 2 Year Term (Vote for Two)...To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ashby v. Patrick
-
Pace v. Hickey, 5-3048
...in any convenient way, such as the use of a rubber stamp or a sticker as was done in this case. As said by this court in Ashby v. Patrick, 181 Ark. 859, 28 S.W. (2d) 55, 'If the ballot voted on was such as not to mislead the electors, but to give them an opportunity to express their will, i......
-
Bennett v. Miller
...... convenient way, such as the use of a rubber stamp or a. sticker as was done in this case. As said by this court in. Ashby v. Patrick, 181 Ark. 859, 28 S.W.2d. 55: "If the ballot voted on was such as not to mislead. the electors but to give them an opportunity to ......
-
Bennett v. Miller, 4-2711.
......As said by this court in Ashby v. Patrick, 181 Ark. 859, 28 S.W.(2d) 55, "If the ballot voted on was such as not to mislead the electors, but to give them an opportunity to express ......