Clanton v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 13 June 1890 |
| Citation | 24 P. 258,14 Colo. 419 |
| Parties | CLANTON v. RYAN |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lake county court.
1. A county election contest may be tried notwithstanding a change of county judges after the commencement of the trial; but in such case the trial must be de novo.
2. Where the cause of contest alleged is error, mistake, fraud malconduct, or corruption in the counting or declaring the result of an election, a recount of the ballots should be ordered as a matter of course upon request of the complaining party.
3. Upon the production of evidence tending to show error, mistake fraud, malconduct, or corruption on the part of the election board, or any of its members, in the matter of receiving numbering depositing, or canvassing the ballots, or other illegal or irregular conduct in respect thereto, an inspection and comparison of the ballots with the poll-lists should be allowed, in connection with the oral evidence in reference thereto.
4. In a county election contest, the statement of contestor that he is 'an elector of the county' is a material averment and, if denied by the answer, must be proved, or the contest as such must fail; nor is the contestor excused from producing evidence in support of such averment on the ground that other competent evidence is refused.
A. S. Weston, S. J. Hanna, Geo. Goldthwaite, and Geo. R. Elder, for appellant.
A. T. Gunnell, for appellee.
ELLIOTT, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
No extended argument is necessary to demonstrate that it was the design of the framers of our constitution that laws should be enacted whereby contested election cases might be thoroughly tried, and impartially and speedily determined. In a republic the people are sovereign, and their sovereignty is primarily expressed in the choice of those who are to exercise governmental powers. In monarchical governments, it is regarded as one of the highest crimes to attempt to overthrow the authority of the reigning prince. As citizens of a free republic, we should at least be as loyal to our country and its institutions as the subjects of a monarchy are to theirs, and should regard any attempt to defeat the will of the sovereign people in the lawful exercise of the elective franchise as the highest crime against the state or nation. In the light of these fundamental truths, the obligation of every department of the government, and the duty of all good citizens, become clearly apparent. Stringent laws should be carefully enacted to secure fairness and prevent fraud in the conduct of elections; and such legislation should be liberally construed, and rigidly enforced. Upon the faithful discharge of these duties and obligations depends the stability and perpetuity of our free institutions.
By the act of 1885 (Sess. Laws, 193) it is provided that contested election cases of county officers, except county judges, shall be tried by the county judge or county court of the proper county. The issues are required to be speedily made up, and the trial to be fixed for an early day; and in case of appeal the cause is to be taken direct to the supreme court, where it has precedence over ordinary cases. Though we shall not undertake to notice all the assignments of error presented, yet, as certain questions of paramount public concern, and of great practical importance in the trial of election contests, are involved in the record, and have been fully argued by counsel, we shall endeavor to give them due consideration.
In our opinion, Judge HALL was right in ruling that a trial of the contest might be had upon his accession to the bench notwithstanding the term of Judge PHELPS had expired after the trial had commenced. Elections for county judges take place once in three years, but it is only once in six years that such elections occur simultaneously with the general election of county officers. While county election contests, if promptly proceeded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Harp v. Vanderburgh Circuit Court
... ... findings in the case, without a trial de novo. Bahnsen v ... Gilbert, [1893], 55 Minn. 334, 56 N.W. 1117; Clanton ... v. Ryan, [1890], 14 Colo. 419, 24 P. 258; In re ... Sullivan, [1904], 143 Cal. 462, 77 P. 153; Connolly ... v. Ashworth, [1893], 98 Cal ... ...
-
Miller v. City of Albuquerque
...with the authority of a second judge to enter an order after an evidentiary hearing was held by the first judge. See Clanton v. Ryan, 14 Colo. 419, 24 P. 258 (1890); McAllen v. Souza, 24 Cal.App.2d 247, 74 P.2d 853 (1937); Slaven v. Slaven, 22 Ohio Op. 230, 35 Ohio L.Abs. 268 (C.P.1941). No......
-
Quigley v. Phelps
... ... Rep. 234). The above decision ... in no manner runs counter to the earlier case cited by the ... appellant from the same court--Clanton v. Ryan, 14 Colo. 419, ... 425, 24 P. 258, 260. In that case nearly 100 witnesses had ... been examined, and their evidence tended to ... ...
-
La Porte v. Bitker
...Hinkley v. Sagemiller, 191 Wis. 512, 210 N.W. 839; Company A., etc., v. State, 55 N.D. 897, 215 N.W. 476, 54 A.L.R. 948; Clanton v. Ryan, 14 Colo. 419, 24 P. 258; Durden v. People, 192 Ill. 493, 61 N.E. 317, 55 L.R.A. 240; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 33......