Buckingham v. Angell
| Decision Date | 19 February 1909 |
| Citation | 238 Ill. 564,87 N.E. 285 |
| Parties | BUCKINGHAM v. ANGELL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Union County Court; A. D. Webb, Judge.
Proceedings by Holly R. Buckingham against Fred Angell. From a judgment for petitioner, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
W. D. Lyerle and D. W. Karraker, for appellant.
George W. Crawford and James Lingle, for appellee.
This is a proceeding instituted by Holly R. Buckingham to contest an election held on the 18th day of April, 1908, in school district No. 19 in Union county, for the purpose of contesting the election of a school director in that district. Fred Angell and Holly R. Buckingham were opposing candidates at that election, and, according to the returns of the judges and clerk, Angell received 118 votes and Buckingham 117. Angell was thereupon declared duly elected by the judges, and he assumed the office. Upon a hearing of the contest in the county court, Buckingham was found to have received 117 votes and Angell 116 votes. The court entered a judgment accordingly, finding that Buckingham had been duly elected. From this judgment Angell has prayed an appeal to this court.
In his petition appellee charges that Thomas P. Noble and Fount Noble each cast an illegal vote for appellant. This contention was sustained by the court, and by deducting these two votes from appellant the court reached the conclusion that the appellee was elected. The most serious contention of appellant is in respect to these two voters. In regard to these two votes appellant contends (1) that the court admitted and considered improper evidence by requiring the two persons whose votes were in question to testify for whom their votes were cast; and (2) that the weight of the evidence shows that the Nobles were both entitled to vote. Appellee charged in his petition that these two voters did not reside in the school district. Upon those questions Thomas P. Noble testified that he resided on the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 16, and that he had resided there for about 20 years. A plat of school district No. 19 was identified and introduced in evidence. From this plat it appears that no part of section 16 is in school district No. 19. The evidence introduced by the appellee proved that the residence of Thomas P. Noble was not within the limits of this school district. Fount Noble was a son of Thomas P. and resided in the house with his father. The appellant proved that Thomas P. Noble had always voted in district No. 19, and sent his children there to school, and that some years ago a petition had been signed for the purpose of having his land attached to district No. 19, but no record of such petition was presented, and, so far as it appears, no official action was ever taken in respect to it. We think the court correctly found that these two voters were not residents, and not entitled to vote in district No. 19.
Appellant further contends that the court erred in requiring these voters to testify for whom they cast their votes. Upon the trial Thomas Noble was a witness, and testified for the appellee in the first instance. He testified, without objection, that he attended the election in question and voted. When asked for whom he voted, objection was made by appellant that a voter could not be required to state for whom he voted. The objection was overruled and an exception taken. The witness not having claimed the privilege on the ground that his evidence might tend to incriminated him, the parties could not claim it for him. When the witness admitted he had voted without claiming his privilege, he could not rightfully decline to answer for whom he voted. Not being a legal voter, it was as much a violation of the law to vote for one candidate as another. The question for whom the illegal vote was cast could neither add to nor detract from the legal quality of the act of voting. Nor could this witness be excused from answering the question upon grounds of public policy, which protects the legal voter against being compelled to disclose for whom he voted. This rule does not protect persons who vote illegally from making a disclosure of how they voted. To give that rule this wide scope would be to make it shield alike the right and wrong, the honest and the dishonest. This rule is intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Gass
...206 Ill. 80, 69 N.E. 240; Widmayer v. Davis, 231 Ill. 42, 83 N.E. 87; Welsh v. Shumway, 232 Ill. 54, 83 N.E. 549; Buckingham v. Angell, 238 Ill. 564, 87 N.E. 285. constitutional provision for a secret ballot (§ 129, Const.) is not self-executing, and it seems clear that appellant should hav......
-
McRobbie v. Registrars of Voters of Ipswich
...766, Ann.Cas.1912A, 724; Eggers v. Fox, 177 Ill. 185, 52 N.E. 269;Sorenson v. Sorenson, 189 Ill. 179, 183, 59 N.E. 555;Buckingham v. Angell, 238 Ill. 564, 87 N.E. 285;Stevenson v. Baker, 347 Ill. 304, 179 N.E. 842;State v. Lockwood, 181 Iowa 1233, 165 N.W. 330;Powers v. Harten, 183 Iowa 764......
-
State ex rel. Beu v. Lockwood
...the evidence competent. See, also, Strebin v. Lavengood, 163 Ind. 478, 71 N. E. 494, 498; People v. Wintermute, supra; Buckingham v. Angell, 238 Ill. 564, 87 N. E. 285;Williams v. Stein, 38 Ind. 89, 10 Am. Rep. 97; 5 Jones, Evidence, § 892, note 64, and cases. Some of the cases go so far as......
-
Stevenson v. Baker
...In such case the witness must claim his personal privilege. Neither party to an election contest can claim it for him. Buckingham v. Angell, 238 Ill. 564, 87 N. E. 285. After the marriage of a woman, and so long as the relations between her and her husband are not adverse, his residence wil......