Soper v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Sibley Cnty.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1891
• Citation: 48 N.W. 1112,46 Minn. 274
• Parties: SOPER v BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SIBLEY COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

46 Minn. 274

48 N.W. 1112

SOPERvBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SIBLEY COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 8, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The failure to post a list of the electors 10 days prior to the election is not sufficient ground for rejecting the votes of the precinct; following former decisions.

2. Neither is the refusal of the judges to allow an elector to be present in the room as a challenger of votes, in the absence of evidence that any injustice resulted.

3. Nor is the fact that the polls were kept open after the hour for closing, in the absence of any evidence that any votes were cast after that hour.

4. A notice that an election will be contested, on the ground that “a large number of legal voters desired and attempted to cast their votes, but, with the knowledge, consent, and connivance of the judges of election, were, by violence and threats, prevented from so doing,” is too general and indefinite, as a specification of a ground of contest.

5. It is not error to dismiss the proceedings on the ground of the insufficiency of the specifications of points upon which an election will be contested, at least in the absence of any offer, or application for leave, to amend the specifications.

Appeal from district court, Sibley county; BAXTER, Judge.

N. E. Clarke and W. F. Booth, for appellant.

W. H. Leeman, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

Taking as true all that is alleged in the notice of contest, it would not change the result of the election, unless the whole vote of the town of Arlington is thrown out as illegal. Hence the only question that need be considered is the sufficiency of the specifications of the points of contest relating to the illegality of the vote of that town.

The first point specified is that no lists of the electors of the town were posted 10 days prior to the election, as provided by Gen. Laws 1887, c. 4, § 6. Assuming that this provision of the general election law is applicable to county-seat elections held under Laws 1889, c. 174, still the omission to comply with it would not of itself be a ground for rejecting the vote of the town. Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107, (Gil. 81;) Edson v. Child, 18 Minn. 64, (Gil. 43.)

The next specification in the notice of contest is with reference to the alleged refusal of the judges of election to allow some legal voter, favorable to the change of county-seat, to be present in the room where the election was held, to act as challenger of voters. This, we suppose,...