McKnight v. Smith

• Decision Date: 12 January 1937
• Docket Number: 14412.
• Parties: McKNIGHT v. SMITH et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

189 S.E. 361

182 S.C. 378

McKNIGHT v. SMITH et al.

No. 14412.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 12, 1937

Original certiorari proceeding by Ottie W. McKnight against B. H Smith and others to review certain action of the State Democratic Executive Committee.

Reversed.

C. T McDonald, of Florence, for petitioner.

Sam J Royall, of Florence, for respondents.

STABLER Chief Justice.

The petitioner, Ottie W. McKnight, seeks in this proceeding to have the court by writ of certiorari review and reverse the action of the State Democratic Executive Committee in refusing to sustain petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Florence County Executive Committee in the matter of the petitioner's contest relative to the primary election held at Salem precinct, September 22, 1936, for magistrate of the Cowards-Salem district of that county.

In obedience to the writ, Hon. Ben T. Leppard, chairman of the State Committee, certified to the court the complete record upon which that committee acted in the matter. The other respondents also made due return to the order, including the respondent Smith, who was declared by the Florence County Committee to be the successful candidate, and who is represented by counsel in this court.

The following appears from the record: There are three primary election precincts in the Cowards-Salem magisterial district for Florence county. In the Democratic primary election, held on September 8, 1936, two candidates for magistrate were voted for in that district, Ottie W. McKnight and B. H Smith. According to the returns, Smith received a majority of the votes cast. As the result of a contest, however, the county committee ordered a third primary for the district, with new managers at the Salem voting place, which was held, as ordered, on September 22, 1936. At this election, when the ballots cast at two of the precincts were counted, it was found that McKnight had 45 votes more than Smith, but the vote at the Salem precinct showed 57 for McKnight and 142 for Smith, thus giving Smith in the district a majority of 41. McKnight duly contested the election on several grounds, the principal one being that the ballots cast at the Salem precinct had been counted by the managers in secrecy, in violation of the rules of the party and of the statute law of the state. At the hearing of the contest by the Florence County Committee, testimony was taken, in the nature of statements by different parties, along with certain affidavits submitted, pertinent to the charges made by the petitioner. The county committee, by a vote of 14 to 5. declared the election valid and B. H. Smith the nominee for magistrate in the district named. It was from this decision that the petitioner McKnight appealed to the State Executive Committee, which sustained the action of the county committee by a vote of 15 to 12.

As agreed by counsel in oral argument here, the only question presented for our decision is whether the ballots cast at the Salem precinct were counted in secret. The charge is made in the verified petition in the following language:

"That after the old managers had been replaced and new ones appointed with instructions to see that the election was properly and lawfully held, the new managers, in violation of the rules and laws governing the Democratic party, immediately after the polls were closed by them, took the ballot boxes and contents and excluded all others from the room or schoolhouse where the election was being held and proceeded, as petitioner is informed and believes, to count the votes and make their report in secrecy. That the doors were fastened and all persons excluded, save and except the managers, a deputy sheriff, and Karl Smith, who it was understood by the committee and petitioner would have nothing to do with the managing of the poll.

That friends of petitioner and those watching for him at the place were denied admittance to the room and not permitted to see the boxes opened or the votes counted in direct violation of the rules of the Democratic party and the laws and rules made and provided in such cases."

It is well settled that the findings of fact of an inferior court or body will not be reviewed by this court, on writ of certiorari, unless such findings are entirely without support in the evidence. See Young v. Sapp, 167 S.C. 364, 166 S.E. 354, 356, and decisions there cited. With the application of this rule in mind, the Court pointed out in the Young Case, a certiorari proceeding, that "our review of the action of the State Democratic Executive Committee must be confined to the correction of errors of law only, and does not extend to the findings of fact, except when the findings of fact are wholly unsupported by evidence."

There is no contention here about the law. Section 1 of article 2 of the Constitution provides that "All elections by the people shall be by ballot, and elections shall never be held or the ballots counted in secret." And section 2309 of the Code that "at the close of the election the managers and clerk shall immediately proceed publicly to...