Ralston v. Meyer.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1891 |
| Citation | 34 W.Va. 737 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ralston v. Meyer. |
1. Elections Amendments.
In the trial of contested elections, two methods of amendment to the notices required by our statute are permissible; First, the statutory method, which is always based upon new facts dis- covered after the original notice has been given; secondly, the method incident to common-law procedure. 2. Elections Amendments.
Fairness, purity and freedom of elections are essential to free government, and the object of the judicial tribunal engaged in deciding upon a contested election is not so much to determine the private rights of the parties, as to decide whom the people have elected in that particular election, according to the very right of the case and the principles of justice; hence, at common-law, amendments to the notice or petition are permitted only to further the ends of justice, and to promote a true and impartial decision, according to the evidence.
J. J. Jacob and J. R. Braddock for plaintiff in error, cited 27 W. Va. 809, 810, 811, 817, 818; 28 Cal. 123; 15 Cal. 119; 15 Mich. 184; 23 Mich. 341.
Eioing, Melvin § Riley for defendant in error, cited 6 W. Va. 605; 15 W. Va. 263, 264; 27 W. Va. 806.
Lucas, President.
John Ralston and John L. Meyer were opposing candidates for the office of assessor of Brooke county at the general election held on the 6th day of November, 1888. According to the canvass of the proper officials, Meyer received seven hundred and ninety eight votes, and Ralston seven hundred and eighty five votes, and the county commissioners gave the certificate of election to Meyer. Ralston contested, and served notice in writing, giving a list of the votes he intended to dispute, and of the rejected votes for which he would contend, with averments that those in the first list voted for Meyer, and that those in the second list would have voted for himself. A counter-notice was served by Meyer, in which was found the names of one Ashby Davis and one William Anderson, the averments as to them being substantially that, for reasons stated, they were not qualified voters at the time of the election; that they voted for Ralston; and that their votes were counted by the commissioners. Ralston did not include these names in his notice, nor was there any amended or supplemental notice.
The County Court proceeded to hear and determine the case, passing upon the qualifications and disqualifications of the voters named in the notice and counter-notice. When the respondent had proceeded at considerable length in the trial of the voters included in his counter-notice, he asked permission to amend his counter-notice by striking off from his list six of the votes therein contained, including the names of said Davis and Anderson, with the allegations regarding each. But this motion was objected to by the contestant, on the ground that the persons named "are by the contestant claimed and admitted to be illegal voters, as stated in the notice, but voted for the contestee, J. L. Meyer, as he, the contestant, claims." The Court sustained the objection, and overruled respondent's motion. Subsequently the Court, at the instance of contestant, took testimony touching the right of these persons to vote, and held that they were disqualified.
In the final order, after reciting that it appeared from the minutes that they in fact had voted for respondent, the court deducted their votes, with seventeen others, from the whole number cast for respondent at said election, added one vote, and deducted six others from those cast for contestant, and then announced the result of their decision as follows: For Ralston seven hundred and eighty votes; for Meyer, seven hundred and seventy nine, Meyer, the respondent, appealed to the Circuit Court, which reversed the decision of the County Court; holding that it was error to deduct the votes of Davis and Anderson, and declaring the true result to be: For Ralston, seven bundled and eighty votes; for Meyer seven hundred and eighty one votes. From this judgment of the Circuit Court a writ of error to this Court has been allowed.
The briefs of the respective counsel in this case filed before this Court are models of perspicuity and sound legitimate argument. They have eliminated all impertinent matter, and reduced the controversy down to its proper and narrow limits, and have been of great assistance to us in deciding the case. The only point at issue between the parties is whether the County Court should have permitted the respondent or contestee to amend his notice by striking out the names of Davis and Anderson, whose votes he had impeached as illegal, and who, as sworn in his affidavit appended to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial