People v. Gochenour

• Citation: 54 Ill. 123,1870 WL 6266
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. HENRY RINGE et al.v.JOHN GOCHENOUR.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1870
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

54 Ill. 123

1870 WL 6266 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. HENRY RINGE et al.

v.JOHN GOCHENOUR.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1870.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Application for mandamus. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case.

Mr. J. P. VAN DORSTON, for the relators.

Mr. GEORGE W. WALL and Mr. J. FOUKE, for the respondent.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

By the twenty-second section of the third chapter of an act for the incorporation of the city of Vandalia, private laws of 1869, vol. 1, page 796, the city was constituted a separate election district, for all elections of township officers, to be held in the township of which the city forms a part, thus making one election district without, and one within the city limits, for an election of the same officers. At the town election held in April, 1869, polls were opened for the city precinct, and votes were received, but the town clerk refused to meet with the town and city supervisors, as required by this act, for the purpose of canvassing the votes there polled. This is an application to this court for a mandamus, to compel the clerk to perform this alleged duty. The respondent has answered, and the case has been submitted on a demurrer to the answer.

Without considering the other questions raised on the argument, there is one fact set out in the answer, and admitted by the demurrer, that is conclusive against this petition. The twenty-second section of the law above cited, requires the city council to fix the place of holding the election, and appoint the judges and clerks. It is alleged in the petition that this was done. The answer denies this allegation, and then proceeds to state that, on the day before the election, as respondent has been informed and believes, the council appointed a clerk, and agreed that the election should be held at the south window of the county clerk's office, in the court house, but no entry was made of these proceedings until a subsequent day, when an order was entered and ante-dated, appointing the same person as clerk, but fixing the town hall as the place of holding the election.

Counsel for relators, in commenting on this part of the answer, say, that although the respondent first denies that a clerk was appointed, and a place fixed by the city council, he afterwards admits it was done in the mode above stated, and this mode, the relators insist, was sufficient. But even if we concede it...