State Ex El. Hatfield. v. El Al.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1924
• Docket Number: No. 5316.,5316.
• Citation: 97 W.Va. 695
• Parties: State ex el. Hatfield et al. v. Farley el al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

97 W.Va. 695

State ex el. Hatfield et al.

v.Farley el al.

No. 5316.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted December 17, 1924.

Decided December 22, 1924.

1. Elections Canvassing Board Cannot go Behind Returns in Ascertaining and Declaring result; Canvassing Board Cannot Inquire Into Manner of Conducting Election, nor Pass on Questions of Fraud, Intimidation, or Manner of Appointing Precinct Officers.

Under section 68 of chapter 3, Barnes' Code, a canvassing board has no authority to go behind the returns of an election in ascertaining the result thereof. It has no authority to inquire into the manner in which an election has been conducted by the officers of the election, nor to pass on questions of fraud, intimidation, or the manner in which the precinct officers were appointed (p. 698).

(Elections, 20 C. J. §§ 255, 258.)

2. Same Ballots Returned by Precinct Officers of Election Not Personally Signed by Both Poll Clerics are Void, and Should Not Be Counted.

Where ballots returned by the precinct officers of an election show that each of the ballots so returned have not been personally signed by both of the poll clerks, all of said ballots are void, and should not be counted, nor should the result of said election at that precinct be declared from the face of the returns. (p 698-a).

(Elections. 20 C. J. § 180.)

3. Same Ballots Improperly and Illegally Signed by Poll Clerics Should be Rejected, and Election of Precinct in Which They are Cast Declared Void.

Where, at an election all the ballots cast at a precinct are improperly and illegally signed by the poll clerks, they should be rejected and the election of said precinct declared void, notwithstanding the sealed package containing said ballots may or may not bear evidence of having been tampered with. (p. 698-b).

(Elections, 20 c. j. § 180.)

(Notr: Parenthetical References by editors, C. J. Cyc. Not part of SyHabi.

Proceeding by the state, on the relation of Tennis Hatfield and others for a peremptory writ of mandamus, to be direet- ed to W. F. Farley and others, Board of Canvassers of Election in Logan County.

Writ denied.

T. C. Town-send, E. II. Butts and M. F. Matheny, for relators.

W. R. Lilly and C. C. Chambers and W. E. R. Byrne, for respondents.

McGinnis, Judge:

The relators, Tennis Hatfield, J. L. Hunter, and A. D. Cook, apply for a peremptory writ of mandamus, compelling the Board of Canvassers of the election held on the 4th day of November, 1924, in Logan County, in which mandamus they seek to correct the action of the said Board of Canvassers in canvassing said (lection, and ascertaining the result thereof in two of the voting precincts, of. said county; they allege that they were candidates respectively for the offices of Sheriff, Assessor, and Commissioner of the County Court of said county, and that Emmet F. Skaggs, Elmo Gore, and J. N. Schweitzer were respectively the opposing candidates for said offices; and that upon said canvass of the returns of the several precincts in said county, the said canvassers ascertained and certified that said Skaggs had received 7486 votes, that said Gore had received 7312 votes, and that said Schweitzer had received 7308 votes for their respective offices, and that said Hatfield had received 7312 votes, that said Hunter had received 7234 votes, and that said Cook had received 7115 votes in said county for the respective offices above mentioned.

The alternative writ alleges that at precinct number 3 in Chapmanville District, known as Striker precinct, that the election officers were not appointed and qualified according to law in. this: that all of said election officers except one were Democrats; that both of the receiving poll clerks at said precinct were Democrats.

It is further alleged that one J. H. Pridemore, a Republican, who appeared at said voting precinct before the opening of the polls thereof, and who had come there for the purpose of act- ing in the capacity of Republican poll clerk at said precinct and who was by a viva voce vote duly elected by the Republicans present to act as such was prevented from acting as such and that the said Democratic officers of said election were guilty of conspiracy, fraud and intimidation at said precinct, by reason of which the voters in said precinct were not permitted to express their choice of candidates freely and fairly, nor were they allowed to have their said expression fairly counted, and that by reason of the said irregularities, intimidation, and fraud, the said relators received only five votes at said precinct and their respective opponents received one hundred ninety-five votes each, at said precinct, and they pray that said Board of Canvassers be commanded to exclude the entire vote at this precinct in ascertaining and certifying the general result of said election, in so far as it affects the relators.

The alternative writ further alleges that in precinct number 12, in Triadelphia District, known as Landville, the said Board of Canvassers refused to count the said votes cast at said precinct from the face of the returns thereof as demanded by the relators; that at said precinct, upon the face of the returns, the said Hatfield, was shown to have received 185 votes for Sheriff, that said Hunter was shown to have received 159 votes for Assessor, and that said, Cook was...