Becraft v. Wright, 10423.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1938
• Docket Number: No. 10423.,10423.
• Citation: 118 S.W.2d 630
• Parties: BECRAFT et al. v. WRIGHT, Co. Atty.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

118 S.W.2d 630

BECRAFT et al. v. WRIGHT, Co. Atty.

No. 10423.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 22, 1938.

Appeal from District Court, Willacy County; A. M. Kent, Judge.

Proceeding to contest an election under the Liquor Control Act by L. F. Becraft and others against Hubert G. Wright, County Attorney of Willacy County. From a judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

S. L. Gill and Kennedy Smith, both of Raymondville, for appellants.

Crane & Glarner and R. F. Robinson, all of Raymondville, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This election contest was filed in the District Court of Willacy County by L. F. Becraft and seven others against Hubert G. Wright, in his official capacity as county attorney of Willacy County. The proceeding was for the purpose of contesting an alleged election held by virtue of the provisions of the so-called Liquor Control Act, as amended, Vernon's Tex.Pen.Code 1938 Supp. art. 666—1 et seq. Contestants, among other things, alleged that certain portions of the Liquor Control Act were unconstitutional and void. The trial court sustained both general and special exceptions directed to the petition, on the theory that in an election contest, such as here presented, it is not proper to go into the question of the validity of the law under which said election is ordered and held. Contestants having refused to amend the cause was dismissed, and from this judgment of dismissal L. F. Becraft and the other contestants have prosecuted this appeal.

The sole question here presented is whether or not in the contest of an election held under the Liquor Control Act (House Bill No. 77, Acts of the Second Called Session of the 44th Legislature, c. 467) the constitutionality and legality of a part of that law may be properly raised as a ground of contest.

It is conceded by appellants that in an election contest held under the general provisions of the election contest statute such questions may not properly be raised. The rule is well stated in Turner v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 254 S.W. 630; as follows (page 635):

"In an election contest in the district court, under the statutory provisions of this state, the authority and jurisdiction of the court is limited and confined in the inquiry to matters happening on the day of election, and pertaining strictly to the election, such as the casting and counting of the ballots, and the actions and conduct of the officers holding the election. The contestant must succeed or fail according to the result of the inquiry touching such matters only. Articles 3062 and 3063, Revised Statutes; Canales v. Mullen (Tex. Civ.App.) 185 S.W. 420; Cofield v. Britton 109 S.W. 493; Bassel v. Shanklin (Tex.Civ.App.) 183 S W. 105; Norman v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 250, 72 S.W. [62], 63; ...