Connelley v. Vester
| Decision Date | 31 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | 4-2857 |
| Citation | 53 S.W.2d 861,186 Ark. 393 |
| Parties | CONNELLEY v. VESTER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; J. O. Kincannon Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This appeal is from a judgment in a primary election contest, the cases being consolidated for a hearing, holding the contestants, appellees herein, entitled to the nominations for circuit clerk and county treasurer of Logan County respectively, as against appellants, Maude Connelley, duly certified by the county central committee as nominated to the office of circuit clerk, and A. B. Hardwicke, duly certified by said committee as nominated county treasurer, in the primary election held on August 9, 1932.
The complaint in the Connelley case alleged the qualifications of Vester as a candidate, his compliance with all the requirements of the law to become a candidate, that he was opposed by Maude Connelley and M. V. B. Harris, the only opposing candidates or persons who received any votes for nomination to that office, and that the county central committee canvassed the returns of the primary election and declared that the candidates, respectively, had each received the number of votes as follows:
Maude Connelley
1457
M. V. B. Harris
1114
Lucien E. Vester
That said committee certified the result accordingly, and that Maude Connelley had received a plurality of the votes cast in the primary election for Democratic nomination for the office of circuit clerk.
It further alleged the casting of illegal votes for said Maude Connelley and M. V. B. Harris against appellee, and that he had received a plurality of the Democratic votes cast in the election.
It specified the particular townships in which votes had been cast by persons not qualified, attached a list of said persons with the name of the precinct in which they voted as exhibits to the complaint, alleging that the illegal votes were cast against appellee and counted for appellants, etc. That certain persons in various other townships, numbering 41, were minors not entitled to vote, and that in certain townships 235 persons who had paid poll tax were not qualified because their names were added to the tax list by the collector or some other unauthorized person and not by the county clerk, and they had not been assessed by the assessor nor by the clerk.
Alleged further that one Omer Smith bought and paid for a large number of poll tax receipts for the purpose of influencing the vote of certain persons in the election; that the collector issued the receipts in the names of divers persons that they were not paid for by the persons in whose names they were issued, who had voted under said receipts against the appellee and for his opponents, etc.
Other illegalities were alleged, and that, if the illegal votes were cast out and expunged from the records, appellee would have received a plurality of the legal votes to the number of 750.
A demurrer was filed by appellant to the complaint, which, it was alleged, showed on its face that the court was without jurisdiction to try the cause, since the complaint failed to allege that the Democratic primary held was a legal election that it failed to allege that the collector, county clerk and election commissioners complied with the laws in holding the election; that it did not show on its face that the plaintiff had a right to maintain the action, and that the court had jurisdiction of same. Certain paragraphs of the complaint were specifically demurred to, and the whole of it as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Without waiving the demurrer, appellant moved to dismiss the complaint and strike it from the files, alleging that plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the action because no list of the voters had been filed with the county clerk by the collector and published for use of the officials in the primary election as required by the statutes (§ 3740 Crawford & Moses' Digest, as amended by Acts of the Legislature of 1931, p. 406).
It was further alleged that § 3777, Crawford & Moses' Digest, had not been followed in allowing persons to vote and requiring them to prove their qualifications otherwise than by the printed list, and that no special list of persons so voting had been made or kept as the law requires. That the judges and clerks of the election did not require any person who voted at the precinct or offered to vote, to exhibit his poll tax receipt, and did not require all of said persons to deliver a certified copy of said poll tax receipts to said judges and clerks of the election as required by law; and that said judges and clerks did not require any persons offering to vote at said election, who had come of age since the time of assessing taxes next preceding the election, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturdy v. Hall
...Ark. 633, 32 S.W.2d 319; Darmer v. White, 182 Ark. 638, 32 S.W.2d 625; Tucker v. Meroney, 182 Ark. 681, 32 S.W.2d 631; Connelley v. Vester, 186 Ark. 393, 53 S.W.2d 861. In the case of some of the lists of official voters here offered in evidence as having been published pursuant to the stat......
-
Sturdy v. Hall
... ... 633, 32 S.W.2d ... 319; Darmer v. White , 182 Ark. 638, 32 ... S.W.2d 625; Tucker v. Meroney , 182 Ark ... 681, 32 S.W.2d 631; Connelley v. Vester , ... 186 Ark. 393, 53 S.W.2d 861 ... In the ... case of some of the lists of official voters here offered in ... ...
- Morrow v. Strait
-
Pogue v. Grubbs, 5-1880
...majority of all the legal ballots cast at the election.', Tucker v. Meroney, 182 Ark. 681, 32 S.W.2d 631, 632, and in Connelley v. Vester, 186 Ark. 393, 53 S.W.2d 861, 863, we reannounced this rule as follows: 'Since the official returns of the election are quasi records and stand with all ......