Paredes v. Martinez, 12644
| Decision Date | 20 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 12644,12644 |
| Citation | 264 S.W.2d 958 |
| Parties | PAREDES v. MARTINEZ. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Gerald Weatherly, Falfurrias, H. P. Guerra, Jr., Rio Grande City, for appellant.
Bismark Pope and Pope & Pope, Laredo, for appellee.
This is an election contest. Proceso Martinez, by a margin of six votes, was declared the duly elected Commissioner from Precinct No. 2 of Zapata County. E. E. Paredes contested the election and has appealed from an adverse judgment of the trial court.
Appellant's first point concerns the same witnesses, voters, voting district, and evidence discussed in the first point in the case of Solis v. Martinez, Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W.2d 956. The statement of facts in the Solis case ws without objection introduced as proof of appellant's first point. Since the evidence is the same, the views we expressed in the Solis case also control in this case.
Appellant in his second point assumes that the reason the election officials rejected the votes of Santiago Gonzales, Mrs. Santiago Gonzales, and Jose L. Torres, is because their absentee ballots were considered by the officials as not being in the hands of the canvassing board within the time required by Article 5.05, Subdivision 5, Vernon's Election Code. However, in addition to the absentee vote requirements, the trial court found that appellant failed to prove that those persons were otherwise qualified voters. Since the appellant had the burden to prove their qualifications and failed to discharge it, we can not assume that their votes were rejected for the one and only reason appellant has assigned. Barker v. Wilson, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W. 543; Kempen v. Bruns, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W. 643; 16 Tex.Jur., Elections, § 145.
Error is asserted in counting five absentee ballots because the applications for ballots were made by telegram. It has been held on several occasions that the statutory requirements for a written application for an absentee ballot are directory and not mandatory. Fugate v. Johnston, Tex.Civ.App., 251 S.W.2d 792; Bray v. Peden, Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W.2d 469; State ex rel. Sharp v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 111; Lee v. Whitehead, Tex.Civ.App., 182 S.W.2d 744; Stratton v. Hall, Tex.Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 865.
Three other absentee votes were challenged because the county clerk personally took ballots to voters at their homes. It is the irregularity that is complained about and not that there was,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grizzaffi v. Lee
...officials improperly rejected votes of certain voters the burden is on the contestant to prove qualifications of such voters. Paredes v. Martinez, 264 S.W.2d 958 (San Antonio Civ.App., 1954, no writ See also Brandon v. Quisenberry, supra; Royalty v. Nicholson, 411 S.W.2d 565 (Houston Civ.Ap......
-
Mitchell v. Jones
...was not required to be sworn to; now it should be. The prior statute was held to be directory in this respect in Paredes v. Martinez, Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W.2d 958. Re-adoption of the statute with the addition that the application be sworn to, and omitting therefrom any expression of a legis......
-
Brandon v. Quisenberry, 7250
...totally failed to discharge this burden. The trial court correctly held Spears was not a qualified voter. Paredes v. Martinez, (Tex.Civ.App.), 264 S.W.2d 958, (N.W.H.). Appellee by his cross assignment of error contends the court erred in holding the votes cast by Mr. and Mrs. Quisenberry a......
-
Rodriguez v. Thompson
...influence, and in fact concluded that no one assisted her in the actual voting. We believe the vote should be counted. Paredes v. Martinez, 264 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1954, no writ). Point of Error Number Nine is A challenge is next made as to three absentee votes where it is ......