Boren v. Smith

• Decision Date: 30 June 1868
• Citation: 1868 WL 5027,47 Ill. 482
• Parties: HIRAM BORENv.HENRY M. SMITH et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

47 Ill. 482

1868 WL 5027 (Ill.)

HIRAM BOREN

v.HENRY M. SMITH et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1868.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Pulaski county; the Hon. JOHN OLNEY, Judge, presiding.

This was a bill in chancery for an injunction to restrain and prevent the removal of the county seat of Pulaski county, from North Caledonia to Mound City. On the hearing, the bill was dismissed, and the cause was brought to this court on appeal. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Messrs. DOUGHERTY & DAVIDGE, for the appellant.

Mr. WESLEY SLOAN and Messrs. MULKEY, WALL & WHEELER, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court: It appears that on the 16th day of February, 1865, an act of the General Assembly was approved, enabling the citizens of Pulaski county to vote for and against removing the county seat, from Caledonia to Mound City. This act took effect from and after its passage. On the day previous, an act was adopted, providing for the registry of electors, and to prevent frauds in elections, which went into effect from and after its passage. An election was held on the 13th day of March, the day named in the act; returns were made, and it was, therefrom, declared that there was a majority of 313 votes in favor of the removal. Thereupon, this bill was filed, for an injunction to restrain and prevent the removal of the county seat, because there was no registry of the voters had before the holding of the election, and that there were more fraudulent votes cast for removal than the majority indicated by the poll books. A demurrer was filed to the bill, but overruled by the court; a hearing was had, the temporary injunction dissolved and the bill dismissed.

Was this an election specified in the registry law? It requires the board of registry to meet on Tuesday, three weeks previous to any State, county, city or town election, and proceed to make a list, &c. The act further declares that they shall meet on Tuesday of the week preceding the election, for the purpose of revising and correcting the registry lists. It will be observed that an election of this character is not embraced in this language. It is not what is understood as a State, county, city or town election. They, as all know, are for the election to fill offices of these various departments or divisions of the State government. Had the General Assembly designed to embrace an election of this character, they would have specifically named it, as they did the others, or employed language sufficiently comprehensive. Had the act declared that the registry should be made before any or all elections, a different question would have been presented. When there are other elections authorized and required by the law, than those enumerated, and when they have specified a portion only, we must conclude that those not named were intended to be excluded from the operation of the law. This is the natural and reasonable interpretation, and accords with the received canons of interpretation.

We now come to the question of fraud, and, having found the abstract so meager and imperfectly made, we have been compelled to read the entire bill of exceptions, to learn what the proof was on the hearing in the court below. No portion of the evidence introduced by appellee has been printed in the abstract, and but a meagre statement of that of appellant. The rule in reference to abstracts has been entirely disregarded in this case, and the record being voluminous, and not well prepared, a large amount of unnecessary labor has been imposed upon the court, which would have been avoided if the...