Blocker v. Sewell
| Decision Date | 05 November 1934 |
| Docket Number | 4-3724 |
| Citation | 75 S.W.2d 658,189 Ark. 924 |
| Parties | BLOCKER v. SEWELL |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Miller Chancery Court; P. P. Bacon, Chancellor affirmed.
Case affirmed.
James D. Shaver, James H. Williams and Will Steel, for appellants.
Ben Carter, for appellees.
Citizens and taxpayers of Miller County filed their petition with the county clerk in that county to initiate a salary act for county officers. This salary act was filed in thirty-eight parts on September 4, 1934, and there was noted on the petitions a filing mark of the county judge of the same date it was filed with the county clerk.
On September 9 the clerk decided the sufficiency of the petitions and approved them, and on September 10 an order was made by the county court, directing the county clerk to give notice, over the signature of the county judge and county clerk, by publication and directing the clerk to certify the submission of the proposed act to the county board of election commissioners of Miller County, Arkansas, with directions to submit to the electors of Miller County the said "initiative act No. 1 of Miller County, Arkansas. An act to fix the salaries and expenses of county officers and to fix the manner in which such compensations and salaries shall be paid and to reduce the costs of county government, and for other purposes.
The notice of publication was signed by Sewell as county judge and Ben Wilson as county clerk.
This suit filed in the Miller Chancery Court was instituted by certain citizens and taxpayers against Sewell, as county judge, and Wilson, as county clerk, and against the election commissioners of the county and their successors, challenging the sufficiency, legality and constitutionality of the salary act proposed to be submitted at the general election on November 6. The several objections urged in the complaint will appear, sufficiently in detail, in the opinion covering propositions urged in the brief.
A restraining order was prayed to prevent the certification and placing of the proposed act upon the ballot to be voted upon at the general election.
Certain other citizens and taxpayers intervened, made themselves parties, demurred specifically to each paragraph in the complaint and at the same time filed an answer. The answer denied all of the allegations of the complaint.
Ben Wilson, county clerk, was sworn and testified substantially to the facts as set forth in this statement, introducing a copy of the petition containing the affidavits of the parties circulating them and showing the respective filing marks of himself and the county judge and also the order of the county judge, the effect of which has been stated, and also the certificate of the clerk, upon his examination of the petitions, which certificate was dated the 10th day of September, and filed with the petitions. This certificate was to the effect that the petition bears the signature of 1,031 persons, shown by affidavit attached, to be legal and qualified voters and electors of Miller County, and further that in the last preceding general election in Miller County, Arkansas, the total vote cast for the circuit clerk of Miller County, Arkansas, was 663. His finding was that more than 1,031 legal voters had signed the initiative petitions, and that the petitions were sufficient to order said proposed act to be submitted to the people for adoption at the general election to be held in Miller County.
The first proposition argued in appellant's brief is that there was no ballot title. The matter of a ballot title and the sufficiency thereof was decided by us in the case of Coleman v. Sherrill, ante p. 843. In that opinion we held that the title of the proposed act, as set forth in the petition, was a ballot title and that it was sufficient. The title of the proposed act in this case is essentially of the same form and effect, and it can not be helpful to render another opinion. The title of the proposed act is the ballot title, and is sufficient.
The next matter suggested is to the effect that there is no sufficient affidavit of the parties who circulated the petition. There were thirty-eight separate parts of the petition filed, and, as we understand the record in this case, there was an affidavit attached to each of the thirty-eight parts thereof. Amendment No. 7 provides that each part of the petition shall have attached thereto the affidavit of the persons circulating the same and to the effect that all signatures thereon were made in the presence of the affiant and that to the best of affiant's knowledge and belief each signature is genuine and that the person signing is a legal voter. One affidavit to each of the parts is all Amendment No. 7 calls for, and there is no requirement that each page of the said petition shall have attached to it a...
To continue reading
Request your trial