Murphy v. Battle
| Decision Date | 01 April 1895 |
| Citation | 155 Ill. 182,40 N.E. 470 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. BATTLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Kane county court; D. B. Sherwood, Judge.
Petition by James W. Battle against John C. Murphy to contest an election for mayor of Aurora. Contestant obtained judgment. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
N. J. Aldrich and S. Alschuler, for appellant.
R. G. Montony and Chas.
Wheaton, for appellee.
At an election for city officers in the city of Aurora on April 18, 1893, four persons were voted for as candidates for the office of mayor, viz. John C. Murphy, James W. Battle, John R. Callan, and S. E. Shepardson. A convention was held by citizens, who nominated a ticket, which was certified to the clerk, and in the manner of nomination that ticket was designated as the ticket nominated by the People's party. For mayor John C. Murphy was the nominee, and others were named for other city officers to be elected. This was certified to by the chairman of this convention and by its secretary. There was also filed with the clerk a petition, signed by the requisite number of voters of the city, making Murphy the nominee of the People's party. There were petitions filed making nominees, by petition, candidates for city clerk, city attorney, clerk city court, and city treasurer; each candidate being designated as the candidate of the People's party. A convention was held by the Prohibition party, at which Shepardson, as candidate for mayor, and other candidates for other offices, were nominated, who were duly certified as candidates of that party. On the petition of the requisite number of citizens and voters, James W. Battle and John P. Callan became candidates for mayor, and other candidates for other offices were nominated by petition; there being four candidates for mayor, three candidates for city clerk, two candidates for city treasurer, three candidates for city attorney, one for clerk of the city court, and numerous candidates for aldermen for the different wards. The tickets, as made up by the clerk and printed, had the candidates nominated by the Prohibition party conventionunder that designation, and the candidates as nominated by the designated People's convention, and who also filed nominations by petition under that designation, printed under the designation of ‘People's Ticket.’ The name of Battle for mayor, with that of Barker for clerk, and Weaver for city attorney, was printed under the designation of ‘Citizens' Ticket’; and the names of Callan for mayor and Galvin for city attorney were printed, and designated the ‘Independent Ticket.’ To the left of each one of the titles was printed a ring, and to the left of each candidate's name a square, in accordance with the act in force July 21, 1891. At the election ensuing from the returns as made, which upon their face seemed to be regular, it appeared that, for the office of mayor, Murphy received 1,483 votes, Battle received 1,479 votes, Callan received 786 votes, and Shepardson 52 votes; and Murphy was declared elected, and proceeded to act as mayor. Battle filed his petition to contest the election, and a re-count of the ballots was had, by which it was determined by the court that the contestant was elected mayor by a plurality of 26 votes. From the judgment of the court on that contest this appeal is prosecuted.
Two questions are presented which are vigorously urged. The first is that where the tickets were so made up and printed by the clerk, and a voter marked with an X the circle opposite the designation ‘Citizens' Ticket,’ it should not be counted for appellee; and, second, whether, in the manner in which the ballots were folded, strung, tied, sealed, kept, and secured, they should have been received in evidence.
By section 14 of the act of 1891 it is provided: The duty is imposed on certain officers by section 15 of the act to provide the ballots, which are made subject to inspection of candidates and their agents, that mistakes may be corrected. Where candidates are placed on the ticket by certificate of nomination or petition, and no title is designated on the petition or certificate, then, by the express provisions of the statute, the officer whose duty it is to prepare the ballots may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornhill v. Wear
... ... the courts should exclude them." ... See ... Powell v. Holman, 50 Ark. 85, 6 S.W. 505; Murphy v ... Battle, 155 Ill. 182, 40 N. [131 La. 746] E. 470; ... Albert v. Twohig, 35 Neb. 563, 53 N.W. 582; ... Hughes v. Holman, 23 Or. 481, 32 P ... ...
-
Farrell v. Larsen
...Hudson v. Solomon, 19 Kan. 177; Kingsley v. Berry, 94 Ill. 115; Caldwell v. McElvain, 56 N.E. 1012; Beall v. Alvert, 42 N.E. 166; Murphy v. Battle, 40 N.E. 470. P. Keeler, Esq., for respondent. Confining the assignment, then, to the question of admissibility, counsel submits the rule to be ......
-
Howser v. Pepper
...impeached to shift the burden of proof. Hudson v. Solomon, 19 Kan. 177; McCrary on Elections, § 478; Dorey v. Linn, 31 Kan. 758; Murphy v. Battle, 155 Ill. 182; Albert Twohig, 35 Neb. 563. Where the statute provides a mode of preserving the identical ballots for the purpose of being used as......
-
Sibley v. Staiger
...v. Finch, 180 Ill. 133, 54 N. E. 318;Eggers v. Fox, 177 Ill. 185, 52 N. E. 269;Beall v. Albert, 159 Ill. 127, 42 N. E. 166;Murphy v. Battle, 155 Ill. 182, 40 N. E. 470. The question whether the ballots have been properly preserved is in every case one of fact to be determined by the evidenc......