Skewes v. Bliss

• Decision Date: 05 April 1921
• Docket Number: 3633
• Citation: 58 Utah 51,196 P. 850
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: SKEWES v. BLISS

196 P. 850

58 Utah 51

SKEWES v. BLISS

No. 3633

Supreme Court of Utah

April 5, 1921

Appeal from District Court, Seventh District, Grand County; H. N Hayes, Judge.

Action by John B. Skewes against W. J. Bliss, contesting the election of defendant as sheriff. From a judgment ousting defendant and declaring the office vacated he appeals.

REVERSED, and defendant declared entitled to the office.

J. W Cherry, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.

Knox Patterson, C. A. Robertson and George J. Constantine, all of Moab, for respondent.

CORFMAN C. J. WEBER, GIDEON, THURMAN, and FRICK, JJ., concur.

OPINION

CORFMAN, C. J.

The plaintiff and defendant were rival candidates for the office of sheriff of Grand county, Utah at the general election held in November, 1920. After a canvass was made of the votes cast in the several county voting precincts, the official returns showed that the plaintiff, as the Democratic candidate, received 290 votes, and the defendant, as the Republican candidate, received 295 votes at said election, and thereupon the defendant was officially declared elected to the office. Within the time authorized by statute the plaintiff commenced this action in the district court of Grand county contesting the said election of the defendant and his right to hold said office upon various grounds, among them the following:

"That said incumbent, contestee, W. J. Bliss, for the purpose of procuring his election, committed an offense against the elective franchise defined by the laws of the state of Utah to wit: That in violation of chapter 15 of title 27 of the Compiled Laws of Utah 1917, the said incumbent, contestee, on or about the 25th day of October, A. D. 1920, made a contribution of money, to wit, the sum of $ 10, to one of the judges of election of Richardson No. 2 voting district, for political purposes."

The defendant, by his answer, denied the allegations of the complaint or contest statement, and prayed judgment that his election to said office be confirmed. After a hearing before the district court, without a jury, the foregoing issue thus joined was found in plaintiff's favor, and, in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, the court rendered judgment and ordered that the defendant "be ousted and excluded from such office (of sheriff) and that said office be declared to be vacated." All other issues raised by the pleadings were decided in defendant's favor, and therefore need not be here considered.

The defendant appeals from the judgment, assigning as errors: (1) Insufficiency of the complaint or statement of grounds of contest; (2) failure of the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment entered.

The plaintiff's complaint against the defendant is founded upon the provisions of chapter 15, of title 27, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, entitled "Prevention and Punishment of Corrupt Practices in Elections." As has been seen, the defendant, for the purpose of procuring his election, is charged with having committed an offense against the election franchise, in that he made a contribution for political purposes of money, $ 10, to one of the election judges of a voting precinct of the county in which he was a candidate for office. For a better understanding of the merits of this controversy, we deem it necessary to here quote such provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act as may be pertinent to the questions raised by the respective parties.

Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 2360, which is the first section of the act referred to, provides:

"Any act shall be deemed to have been for political purposes when the act is of a nature, or is done with the intent, or * * * in such a way, as to influence or tend to influence, directly or indirectly, any voting at any * * * election. * * * The term 'personal campaign committee' shall mean any committee appointed by a candidate to act for him as hereinafter provided. * * * The term 'party committee' shall mean any committee appointed or elected to represent any political party with a party organization in this State."

Section 2362 provides:

"No candidate shall make any disbursements for political purposes except under his personal direction, which for every purpose shall be considered his act, or through a party committee, or through a personal campaign committee, whose authority to act shall be filed as provided by this chapter."

Section 2364 reads:

"No person or group of persons, other than the candidate or his personal campaign committee, or party committee, shall make any disbursements for political purposes, otherwise than through a personal campaign committee, or a party committee, except," etc.

Section 2365 provides:

"No candidate for * * * election to any elective office in this state coming within the provisions of this chapter shall make any disbursements for political purposes except the following, which are hereby declared to be legal disbursements for political purposes, to wit: * * * (4) For contributions to his party committee."

Section 2368 provides that a financial statement shall be made by the candidate showing:

"Every disbursement by such candidate or committee for political purposes during such period, together with the name of every person to whom the disbursement was made, the specific purpose for which each was made, and the date when each was made, together with the total amount of disbursements made in any amounts or manner whatsoever."

Section 2376 provides a limitation on disbursements, not material here, as it is not contended defendant exceeded the prescribed limitation. Said section also provides:

"No sum of money shall be paid, and no expenses authorized or incurred by or on behalf of any candidate contrary to the provisions of this chapter."

Section 2398, among other things, provides that--

In proceedings under the act "the complaint * * * shall set forth the name of the person whose election is contested, and the grounds of the contest in detail."

Section 2399 provides:

"If the court shall find that the candidate whose right to any office is being investigated * * * has violated any provision of this chapter, in the conduct of the campaign for * * * election * * * judgment shall be entered declaring void the election of such candidate to the office for which he was a candidate, and ousting and excluding him from office and declaring the office vacant."

Section 2404 provides:

"Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished, unless otherwise herein provided, by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than one month nor more than one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of not less than one year nor more than three years, or by a fine of not less than $ 25.00 nor more than $ 1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and no person so convicted shall be permitted to take or hold the office to which he was elected, if any, or receive the emoluments thereof."

Under the provisions of Comp. Laws Utah 1917, c. 16, § 2415, treating of election contests, it is provided:

"No statement of the grounds of contest will be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed by any court for want of form, if the grounds of contest are alleged with such certainty as will advise the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which such election is contested."

Section 2419 of the same chapter provides:

"After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court must pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election."

We cannot agree with the contention of counsel for appellant that the complaint in this action does not sufficiently state the grounds of the contest; nor that the defendant was not advised thereby of what he had to meet. Moreover, no complaint was made before the trial court on the ground of the insufficiency of the allegations of the complaint. The defendant saw fit to answer the complaint, proceed to trial without demurring or otherwise challenging the sufficiency of the complaint, and he ought not be heard to question its sufficiency for the first time in this court. While the allegations of the complaint with reference to the particular act charged might well have been more specific, the charge that the defendant "made a contribution of money, to wit, the sum of $ 10, to one of the judges of said Richardson No. 2 voting district for political purposes," in our judgment, was sufficient to advise him as to what he had to meet and to confer jurisdiction upon the court to proceed with the case under the provisions of our statute, section 2415 above quoted.

What has been said with respect to the sufficiency of the complaint applies, we think with equal force to the contention made by appellant as to the insufficiency of the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. As we read the decision of the trial court, the court did make both findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficiently meeting the requirements...