Neelley v. Farr

• Decision Date: 21 June 1916
• Docket Number: 8683-8686.
• Citation: 158 P. 458,61 Colo. 485
• Parties: NEELLEY v. FARR.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

158 P. 458

61 Colo. 485

NEELLEY v. FARR.

Nos. 8683-8686.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 21, 1916

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1916.

Error to Huerfano County Court; Henry Blickhahn, Judge.

Separate election contests by E. L. Neelley against J. B. Farr, by J G. Archuleta against W. H. Freeland, by Charles H. Sanchez against Jose S. Sanchez, and by Robert Young against Antonio D. Valdez. Separate judgments dismissing each of the contests, and contestors bring error. Reversed, with findings, and with judgment for the contestors declaring them elected to the respective offices.

Gabbert C.J., and Garrigues, J., dissenting.

C. S. Thomas and H. N. Hawkins, both of Denver John L. East, of Walsenburg, Mullins & Heller, of Denver, Romilly E. Foote, of Walsenburg, and Philip Hornbein, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles Hayden and Frank A. Kemp, Jr., both of Walsenburg, and Jesse G. Northcutt and Henry W. Coil, both of Trinidad, for defendants in error.

SCOTT J.

These are election contests growing out of the general election in Huerfano county in November, 1914. The statements of contest filed are in all respects identical, with the exception that different offices are involved and different pluralities returned by the board of canvassers.

The plaintiff in error E. L. Neelley contested the election of J. B. Farr, defendant in error, for the office of sheriff. Plaintiff in error J. G. Archuleta contested the election of defendant in error W. H. Freeland for the office of county clerk and recorder. Plaintiff in error Charles H. Sanchez contested the election of Jose S. Sanchez, defendant in error, for the office of county assessor, and plaintiff in error Robert Young contested the election of Antonio D. Valdez for the office of county commissioner. The cases were consolidated for trial in the county court, and are here consolidated and submitted upon the same testimony and the one record. Separate judgments were rendered in the county court dismissing each of the contests. We consider specifically the contest for the office of sheriff.

The official abstract of the board of canvassers shows the vote of each of the candidates in the entire county to be as follows:

For Sheriff:

J. B. Farr 2,553 votes

E. L. Neelley 2,224 votes

Farr's plurality 329 votes

For County Clerk and Recorder:

J. G. Archuleta 2,235 votes

W. H. Freeland 2,418 votes

Freeland's plurality 173 votes

For County Assessor:

Jose S. Sanchez 2,466 votes

Charles H. Sanchez 2,235 votes

Jose Sanchez's plurality 231 votes

For Courty Commissioner:

Antonio D. Valdez 2,370 votes

Robert Young 2,280 votes

Valdez's plurality 90 votes

The grounds of contest were: (a) That illegal votes were received of sufficient number to change the apparent result of the election; (b) that legal votes favorable to contestor were rejected by the election officials sufficient to change the apparent result of the election; and (c) that there was malconduct, fraud, and corruption on the part of the election officials in various voting precincts sufficient to change the result of the election.

The specific allegations as to malconduct were, in substance: That the defendant in error has been the acting sheriff of Huerfano county for a great number of years, and that at all times during his incumbency as sheriff he used said office for the purpose of controlling the government of the county of Huerfano in behalf of himself and other officials and certain corporations engaged in coal mining in said county, and that the said defendant in error, as sheriff, and other officials, including the board of county commissioners and certain corporations engaged in coal mining, did prior to the general election conspire to thwart the will of the qualified electors of Huerfano county and to corrupt the ballot; that in pursuance of said conspiracy the said defendant in error and other officials did create various precincts in the said county of Huerfano in such manner that such precincts could be wholly controlled by the various mining corporations therein operating, and did establish and create precincts so that no person could reside therein, or would be permitted to vote therein, except persons employed by certain coal mining corporations operating in said precincts; that the precincts thus created and established were known as Cameron precinct No. 27, Rouse precinct No. 22, Pryor precinct No. 21, Oakview precinct No. 20, Walsen Mine precinct No. 18, Ravenwood precinct No. 15, and Niggerhead precinct No. 14; that said precincts were known as 'closed camps,' and comprised territory solely owned and controlled by various mining corporations; and that no person was permitted to enter the territory of said precincts without the consent of the officials of said mining companies. It was further alleged that said precincts were so established and bounded in furtherance of the conspiracy and with the specific purpose of enabling the defendants in error to control the election in said precincts, and to prevent the plaintiffs in error and other candidates nominated by the same political parties from making any investigation of the qualifications of the voters in said precincts, and for the purpose of corrupting the ballot in said precincts and committing fraud in and about the conduct of the election, so that the election of the defendants in error would be insured. It is further alleged that in furtherance of said conspiracy the county commissioners did so establish and arrange precincts in various places with the view of making said voting precincts inaccessible to a great number of qualified electors who were entitled to vote and were known to be opposed to the plaintiff in error; that on account thereof a great number of qualified electors were compelled to travel a great distance in order to cast their ballots; that other qualified voters did not go to the polling places; that the defendants in error, in pursuance of said conspiracy, intimidated and coerced a great number of persons in the county of Huerfano who were dependent upon the county for support to vote for the defendants in error; that the defendants in error did conspire with said coal companies and a great number of election judges who were named and designated through the influence of defendant in error and said coal companies to permit a great number of persons who were not qualified electors to vote at said general election, and that the votes of a great number of persons who were not qualified to vote were received at the election, and that in furtherance of said conspiracy a great number of legal and qualified voters were denied the right to vote; that in furtherance of said conspiracy certain judges of election, designated through the influence of the defendants in error, assisted a great number of illiterate persons to vote, although said persons were in no respect physically disabled; that the defendants in error, acting in conjunction with said coal companies, did procure the appointment and designation as judges of election of a great many persons who were employés, agents, superintendents, managers, and bosses of a number of employés of corporations engaged in carrying on mining and manufacturing in said county of Huerfano, and that the voters voting in said precincts controlled by said mining companies were under the control of the judges of election, and that the employés of the coal mining companies were thus designated as judges for the purpose of unlawfully coercing and intimidating the votes of employés at said election; that in pursuance of said conspiracy the said coal companies did coerce and intimidate persons employed by them, and did threaten them with discharge and loss of employment if they did not vote for the defendants in error. There were additional allegations specifying alleged frauds in each of the said precincts, and in others.

The answers of the contestees were the same in each case except that in the case of Young v. Valdez the answer set up that contestor Young was not a resident of the commissioner district from which he was a candidate, and for such reason was not eligible to that office. The answer denied generally that there was any such conspiracy as charged in the statement of contest, denied specifically the charges as to the receiving of illegal votes and the rejection of legal votes, and made countercharges of a similar nature. The answer also charged a conspiracy between the Democratic party of Huerfano county and a labor organization known as the United Mine Workers of America to corruptly control the election in that county.

The contestors filed their separate petitions for a change of venue because of the alleged bias and prejudice of the judge, in which it was charged in substance as follows:

'First. That the contestor herein fears that he will not receive a fair trial in the court in which this action is pending, on account that the judge hereof is interested and prejudiced against the confestor, and that the contestor cannot have nor expect a fair and impartial hearing and decision of the issued involved herein for the following reasons:

'(A) That J. B. Farr, the contestee herein, known as Jeff Farr, is the political leader and controls the machinery of the local Republican political organization, and dictates all nominees, and did dictate all nominees to be placed upon the said ticket at the last general election; that the said Jeff Farr determines who shall be supported for election and who shall be defeated; that the said Jeff Farr had an undue influence over the judge of this court; that the said Jeff Farr has heretofore held the office of sheriff of this county, and is desirous of continuing to hold the said office of

...