Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer

Decision Date09 May 1888
CitationKreitz v. Behrensmeyer , 125 Ill. 141, 17 N.E. 232 (Ill. 1888)
PartiesKREITZ v. BEHRENSMEYER.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Adams county court; B. F. BERRIAN, Judge.

Election contest. Judgment for the contestant, from which the contestee appeals. One of the witnesses, August Bansman, testified that he was born in Germany, never obtained naturalization papers, but voted at the election contested. He came to America in 1855, at the age of two years, with his mother, his father having died in the old country; and his mother in the same year, or shortly afterwards, married a citizen of the United States.C. A. Babcock and Carter & Govert, for appellant.

Wm. McFadon, for appellee.

SCHOLFIELD, J.

Charles F. A. Behrensmeyer filed his petition in the county court of Adams county on the 26th of November, 1886, to contest the election for the office of county treasurer of that county, to which John B. Kreitz had been declared elected by the canvassing board. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner had been, and on that day was, and from thence hitherto has been, and he still is, an elector of Adams county, Ill.; that he was an elector of said county at the date of the election next hereafter mentioned; that on November 2, 1886, in pursuance of law, an election was held in said county for, among other offices, that of county treasurer of said county; that said election was held at the various election precincts and districts in said county,-the polls having been opened at each such precinct and district according to law; that, in the said several and respective precincts and districts, ballots were at said election received for said office of county treasurer; that, after the polls were closed, a count was made by the judges of election of and at the respective precincts and districts aforesaid of the votes and ballots at each of said election precincts and districts cast; that, upon such count, the judges of the respective precincts and districts aforesaid made certificate of the number of votes cast for the several and respective persons voted for for the different offices, including therein the said office of county treasurer, as said votes were counted by said judges, and said judges of said respective precincts and districts thereupon caused the ballot-boxes containing the ballots voted in the said respective precincts and districts, with their said certificate of the number of votes cast last above named, to be forwarded to the county clerk of Adams county, Ill., who, together with two justices of said county, within four days of said election, opened the returns of said election, and canvassedthe same as required by law. It is further alleged that, at said election, your petitioner was the Republican candidate, John B. Kreitz was the Democratic, and B. L. Dickerman the Prohibition, candidate, for the office of county treasurer aforesaid; and that said Kreitz had 4,618 votes, your petitioner 4,604, and said Dickerman 272 votes, for the last-named office, as the result was declared by said canvassing board, and that, upon the result as last above named, the county clerk of said Adams county issued and delivered to said Kreitz a certificate of election to the office of treasurer aforesaid. That on information and belief, that the canvassing board reached result by adding together the votes for candidates for county treasurer as the same were stated in certificate of judges of the respective precincts and districts aforesaid, and that any errors in the count of the election judges entered into the result as declared by said canvassing board. The names of precincts in county of Adams, outside of Quincy, are then stated, and that the town of Quincy was divided into 16 election districts, numbered 1 to 16, inclusive, after which it is further alleged that, at Melrose precinct, 14 or more votes were cast at said election for, and intended for contestant, and which ought to have been counted for him, but which judges refused to count and did not count for him, and that said last-named judges counted for Kreitz 8 votes or upward cast for contestant, and which ought to have been counted for contestant for said treasurer. That William Childers voted at Melrose, and was an illegal voter. That at Burton 3 votes cast for contestant for said treasurer, and which ought to have been counted for petitioner, the judges of election refused to and did not count for him; and that they, by mistake, counted 5 or more votes for Kreitz for that office cast for contestant. That, at Ursa precinct, 16 legal votes, and at Mendon 9 legal votes, and McKee 5 legal votes, and Honey Creek 9 legal votes, and at Liberty 5 legal votes, and at Richfield 10 legal votes, and at Third district of Quincy 10 legal votes, and at the Fifth district of Quincy 10 legal votes, and at the Sixth election district of Quincy 8 legal votes, and at the Tenth district of Quincy 12 legal votes, and at the Twelfth district of Quincy 12 legal votes, and that at the Fourteenth election district of Quincy 5 legal votes, and at the Fifteenth election district of Quincy 16 legal votes, and at the Sixteenth election district of Quincy 12 legal votes, were cast for contestant for said treasurer, which the judges of election of the respective precincts and districts ought to have counted for contestant, but refused to count and did not count for him for said office. And it is further alleged, on information and belief, that, at each of said last 14 precincts and districts, votes for contestant for said office were actually counted for Kreitz by the election judges, the precise number of which is unknown to contestant, but which he asks to have ascertained by a recount; that F. C. Inman voted illegally at Third district of Quincy for Kreitz for treasurer, and that he was not 21 years of age when he so voted; that at Liberty three persons voted illegally for Kreitz for treasurer, but contestant has not yet been able to ascertain their names; that at Liberty more ballots were in the ballot-box than on the poll-list, and that the judges of said precinct did not correctly count the ballots of the precinct; that, at the Tenth district of Quincy, the judges found among the ballots two folded together, both for contestant, one numbered and one not, and that the judges threw out both, and did not count either ballot; that, at each of the election precincts and districts of Adams county other than those above named there were cast divers legal votes for contestant for treasurer, which the judges of the respective precincts and districts refused to count for him for treasurer, which ought to have been counted for him, and that, at each of the precincts and districts last named, votes cast for contestant for said treasurer were by the judges of election thereof counted by mistake for Kreitz for that office; that, at some of the precincts and districts of said Adams county, other illegal votes than those above named were cast by persons not legal voters for Kreitz for said office of treasurer, and counted by the election judges for him; that the judges of election of the several election precincts in said Adams county made mistakes in counting the ballots cast for treasurer at the respective precincts as existing at said election.

And the answer of the defendant denies that petitioner, on January 1, 1886, and from that time to and inclusive of date of election, on November 2, 1886, was an elector of Adams county, Ill.; admits an election held for county treasurer of that county on November 2, 1886, in said county; and that at said election polls were open at each of the voting precincts of said county, and that ballots were cast and received thereat; admits that, after the polls were closed, a count was made, by the judges of the different precincts, of the votes cast thereat; and that, upon such count being made in each precinct, the judges thereof certified the number of votes cast for the different persons voted for the different offices, including therein the office of county treasurer, as the votes were counted by said judges; admits that said judges of said precincts, except in the case of the township of Ellington, thereupon caused the ballot-box containing the ballots voted at said respective precincts, with their said certificate of the number of votes cast thereat, to be forwarded to the county clerk of said Adams county, and that said clerk and two justices afterwards, and within four days of said election, opened the returns of said election from all said precincts, including Ellington, and canvassed same. It further admits petitioner was the Republican, and B. L. Dickerman the Prohibition, and respondent the Democratic, candidate for said county treasurer; and that the result of the election, as declared by said canvassing board, was 4,618 votes for Kreitz, 4,604 votes for contestant, and 272 votes for Dickerman; and that said county clerk issued respondent a certificate of election; that said canvassing board merely added together the result as certified by the judges of the different precincts as to county treasurer; denies that any errors and vices entering into the result, as certified by the judges, was preserved in the result as announced by canvassing board; avers that there were no errors or irregularities in said returns, as certified by election judges, except as hereinafter stated; admits that precincts and election districts of the county, or as set out in petition of contestant; denies that at Melrose precinct 14 or more legal votes were cast for Behrensmeyer which ought to have been counted for him, which judges refused to count for him; denies that at Melrose judges counted 8 or more votes for Kreitz which belonged to Behrensmeyer, and asserts that the judges of Melrose counted every vote there cast for him, and denies that William Childers was an illegal voter; denies that at Burton 3 or more votes were cast for Behrensmeyer which judges refused to count...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
95 cases
  • Nelson v. Gass
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 3 Marzo 1914
    ... ... 169; People v ... Smith, 51 Ill. 177; Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill ... 266; Jennings v. Joyce, 116 Ill. 179, 5 N.E. 534; ... Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 Ill. 141, 8 Am. St. Rep ... 349, 17 N.E. 238; Keating v. Stack, 116 Ill. 193, 5 ... N.E. 541; Allerton v. Hopkins, 160 ... ...
  • Maksym v. the Bd. of Election Commissioners of The City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 24 Enero 2011
    ...change. Hatcher v. Anders, 117 Ill.App.3d 236, 239, 72 Ill.Dec. 769, 453 N.E.2d 74 (1983). In the foundational case Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 Ill. 141, 17 N.E. 232 (1888), the supreme court stated: “We have frequently held that when a party leaves his residence, or acquires a new one, it ......
  • Maksym v. the Bd. of Election Commissioners of The City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 27 Enero 2011
    ...temporary purpose, to be followed by a resumption of the former residence, will not be an abandonment’ ” (quoting Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 Ill. 141, 195, 17 N.E. 232 (1888))). Moreover, the principles established in Smith and uniformly followed since were the very principles relied upon ......
  • Rouse v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 2 Octubre 1907
    ...be shown not only by what the voter says, but also by his acts. Moffett v. Hill, 131 Ill. 239, 22 N. E. 821;Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 Ill. 141, 17 N. E. 232,8 Am. St. Rep. 349. This court plainly recognized in People v. Election Com'rs, 221 Ill. 28, 77 N. E. 321, the principle that a test......
  • Get Started for Free