State ex rel. Nelson v. Sundquist

• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Citation: 118 N.W. 836,137 Wis. 292
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE EX REL. NELSON v. SUNDQUIST ET AL.

137 Wis. 292

118 N.W. 836

STATE EX REL. NELSON

v.SUNDQUIST ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 15, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Price County; John K. Parish, Judge.

Certiorari by the State, on the relation of Nels Nelson, against C. L. Sundquist, and J. W. Emerson and others, interveners. Judgment for relator, and the intervening defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Price county rendered upon certiorari to and reversing the decision of the inspectors of election of the village of Prentice relative to the results of an election upon the question of license or no license for retail liquor dealers in said town. The election was held April 7, 1908, in the duly organized village of Prentice, and prior to this charter election there was a petition as prescribed by law praying that the question of licensing persons to deal or traffic in spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors or drinks as a beverage be submitted to the electors of said village at the ensuing election, and such proceedings had that this question was properly submitted. The inspectors of the election canvassed the vote upon this question, and determined and certified to the clerk of the village that the total number of votes cast upon this question was 126, of that number 25 votes were for license and 49 against, and 52 votes rejected as illegal. The last-mentioned ballots were preserved, and the relator, describing himself as a citizen and taxpayer and elector of the village of Prentice there engaged in the retail liquor business and having a large sum of money invested in that business, applied for and procured from the circuit court a writ of certiorari directed to the clerk of the village, alleging, in substance, that said 52 ballots were unlawfully rejected, and that the canvass and decision of the board of inspectors was illegal and without jurisdiction, and void for this reason. The writ commanded that the village clerk certify and return to the circuit court the action and decision of said board of election inspectors and every matter and thing upon which said action and decision of said board was founded, and a correct transcript of so much of the proceedings of said board as relates to the submission of the question relative to liquor license, together with a copy of all files, papers, or entries recorded, entered, filed, or used in the possession or under the control of said clerk. On April 25, 1908, the village clerk made very full return to this writ. The defendants J. W. Emerson and others were by order allowed to intervene as defendants and represent all of the petitioners for the submission to the electors of the license question aforesaid. These interveners moved to quash the writ of certiorari, their motion was denied, and upon the writ and return the circuit court adjudged that the foregoing decision of the election inspectors was manifestly erroneous and void in law, and that such decision “be, and the same is hereby, reversed.”

Among other references upon the part of the appellant were the following: State v. Fuldner, 109 Wis. 56, 85 N. W. 118;State v. Oconomowoc, 104 Wis. 622, 80 N. W. 942;State v. Janesville, 90 Wis. 157, 62 N. W. 933;State v. Kemen, 61 Wis. 494, 21 N. W. 530;State v. Superior, 90 Wis. 612, 64 N. W. 304;State v. Schroff, 123 Wis. 98, 100 N. W. 1030;State v. Lawler, 103 Wis. 460, 79 N. W. 777;State v. Timme et al., 70 Wis. 627, 36 N. W. 325;Morris v. Ferguson, 14 Wis. 266;State v. Whitford, 54 Wis. 150, 11 N. W. 424;Hartwig v. Watertown, 132 Wis. 83, 112 N. W. 21;State v. Sullivan, 83 Wis. 416, 53 N. W. 677;State v. Meilike, 81 Wis. 574, 51 N. W. 875;State v. Norton, 46 Wis. 332, 1 N. W. 22; McCrary on Elections, §§ 227, 229, 261-264.

Among other references upon the part of the respondent were the following: Gillespie v. Palmer, 20 Wis. 544;State v. Doyle, 40 Wis. 175, 22 Am. Rep. 692;Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519; 10 A. & E. Ency. Law, p. 707; State v. Luy, 103 Wis. 524, 79 N. W. 776; 15 Cyc. 384, 385; State v. Gosnell, 116 Wis. 606, 93 N....