De La Garza v. Salinas, 12510
| Decision Date | 18 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 12510,12510 |
| Citation | 255 S.W.2d 396 |
| Parties | DE LA GARZA et al. v. SALINAS et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Margus F. Smith, McAllen, for appellants.
Royce A. Oxford and Joe v. Alamia, Edinburg, for appellees.
This is an election contest instituted by Rodolfo de la Garza, Leo J. Leo and Manuel Conde, as contestants, against Saragoza Salinas, Nieves E. Garcia and Ernesto Jackson, as contestees, seeking to have contestants declared to be elected to three places on the Board of School Trustees of the Tabasco Consolidated Independent School District of Hidalgo County, Texas.
Upon a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of contestees and contestants have prosecuted this appeal.
Appellants present only the following point:
'The trial court erred in refusing Contestants' motion to open the boxes containing the marked ballots and recount such ballots, because the uncontradicted testimony showed that the election officials were biased and prejudiced against Contestants and in favor of Contestees, the results as declared by the election officials were incorrect, having been arbitrarily set by such election officials without regard to the number of ballots cast for each candidate, and the results as declared by the election officials showed more ballots counted than were actually cast.'
Appellants do not contend that they offered any evidence showing that illegal votes were cast and counted for appellees. Their only contention is that the ballots were not properly counted. In support of this contention they cited numerous irregularities and errors in the conduct of the election. They point out that Miss Florine Baker, presiding judge of the election, told Arturo Garza, a supervisor for appellants, 'You go into the counting room where they are counting the votes.' Arturo Garza testified, In so instructing the supervisors the presiding judge was stating fairly accurately the provisions of Article 3.05 Election Code, V. A.T.S., which provides in part as follows:
The only mistake she made was in telling the supervisors they were not to see the ballots and that they could only make their complaints in writing. In instructing the supervisors that she had the authority of a district judge, the presiding judge was supported by the provisions of Article 8.05 of the Election Code, V. A.T.S., reading as follows:
This supervisor also testified that on one occasion the tallying clerks were five votes apart on their counting and that this decrepancy was corrected by adding two votes to the votes of appel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eason v. Robertson
...the results of such election. 'See: Altgelt v. Calla(g)han (Tex.Civ.App.), 144 S.W. (1166), er(ror) dis(missed); De La Garza v. Salinas (Tex.Civ.App.) 255 S.W.2d 396 (no writ history); DuBose v. Ainsworth (Tex.Civ.App.), 139 S.W. (307) (er(ror) dis(missed)); Marks v. Jackson (Tex.Civ.App.) ......
-
Guerra v. Pena, 14545
...ballots. Art. 13.30, Election Code, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.; McIver v. Starkey, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W.2d 314, no writ; De La Garza v. Salinas, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 396, no writ; Markowsky v. Newman, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 896, wr. dism. The voting lists show that an absentee vote was cas......
-
Day v. Crutchfield
...reason, is shown under the record in this cause. In this connection see the following authorities: 21 Tex.Jur.2d 453; DeLa Garza v. Salinas, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 396, no writ (1953); Jordan v. Overstreet, Tex.Civ.App., 352 S.W.2d 296, error dism. Appellants, under their statement and ar......
-
Jordan v. Overstreet
...or fraud we think the discretion of the trial court as to whether the ballot box is opened is one that should control. De La Garza v. Salinas, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 396. As a basis for the order calling the election by the county judge there was submitted to him three different sheets of......