Coll v. City Board of Canvassers of Election

• Decision Date: 21 November 1890
• Citation: 83 Mich. 367,47 N.W. 227
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: COLL v. CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ELECTION et al. SCHEHR v. SAME. MEIER v. SAME.

47 N.W. 227

83 Mich. 367

COLL v. CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ELECTION et al.

SCHEHR v. SAME.

MEIER v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 21, 1890

Wisner, Speed & Harvey, for relators. F. A. Baker, for respondent Jacob.

GRANT J.

Each of the above relators has applied to this court, by petition for the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent the board of city canvassers, to assemble and declare him elected to the office of alderman. Relator Coll was elected to fill a vacancy in the 16th ward of the city by a majority of 19 votes. Relator Schehr was elected by a majority of 45 votes; relator Meier by a majority of 39 votes. The boards of inspectors of election of the several precincts returned the number of votes cast for each candidate for alderman in the respective wards. These returns were duly filed, and the city board of canvassers of election met on the 8th of November to canvass the returns. They adjourned until November 10th without action. On November 10th the returns from said boards of inspectors were referred to a committee to foot up the returns for the respective persons voted for in the respective districts. This committee reported showing the above majorities for the relators respectively. The respondents refused to declare any result in the case of relator Coll. In the case of the other relators, their opponents, who received the minority of the votes cast, were, by a majority vote of the respondents, declared elected, and the petitions aver that it is the intention of the city clerk, respondent Kronberg, to issue certificates of election to their opponents. After the above action the board then adjourned sine die. Respondent Prentis answers denying that he acted with the majority, though the clerk records him as having voted with them. He has therefore purged himself from complicity with this infamous transaction. Of the other respondents, Jacob alone answers, admitting all the facts set up in the petition and setting forth in detail what transpired before the board of canvassers. No protest was made against the election of Coll, nor was there any pretense that he was not fairly and honestly elected. In the case of relator Schehr, his opponent, Henry Gudenau, filed a protest in which he claims that votes were illegally, unlawfully, and fraudulently cast for said Schehr by the unlawful use of money by said Schehr and his agents. In support of this protest he filed two affidavits, one by one Nicholas Youngblood, who swore that while he was talking to a voter on election day, who expressed a desire to vote for Gudenau and had accepted a ticket from the deponent, and while said deponent and said voter were engaged in conversation, relator Schehr interfered and requested said voter to step aside with him; that they stepped aside, and that the deponent saw Schehr give to the voter some money. Youngblood heard none of the conversation and does not even swear that the man, whose name he does not give, voted. The other affidavit was made by one John Fisher, who swore that one Rouff asked a voter under similar circumstances to step aside with him. He does not claim to have heard what was said, but he avers that Rouff gave the voter one dollar, and he believes that it was given for, and in behalf of, relator Schehr, and accepted by the voter, whose name he does not give, as an inducement to vote for Schehr. This affidavit likewise does not state that the man voted. A protest was filed by John Kessler, opposing candidate in the election against Meier, charging that he corruptly gave money to divers and sundry persons, whose...