State v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 02 March 1908
• Citation: 60 S.E. 699,79 S.C. 246
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WELSH et al v. JENNINGS, State Treasurer, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

60 S.E. 699

79 S.C. 246

STATE ex rel. WELSH et al v. JENNINGS, State Treasurer, et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 2, 1908

Certiorari by the state, on the relation of J. A. Welsh and others against R. H. Jennings and others, acting as the state board of canvassers, to review the findings of the board in the contest of an election.

Petition dismissed.

W. P Pollock, for petitioners.

Smith & Kirkland and E. D. Blakney, for respondents.

POPE C.J.

This is a petition to this court for a writ of certiorari to be directed to the state board of canvassers for the purpose of having the court review the findings of said board in the contest of an election held in Chesterfield county on August 13, 1907, under the act of the General Assembly of February 16, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 463), commonly known as the "Carey-Cothran Act." The petition alleges many irregularities and illegalities, and it is sought to be shown that the whole election was so permeated by them that the result of the election was necessarily rendered doubtful. In this contention the contestants were sustained by the county board of canvassers, but on appeal to the state board the finding of the county board was reversed; the state board holding that while there had been irregularities and illegalities, none of them violated any constitutional provision nor any legislative provision of the Legislature made by that body essential to a valid election, nor rendered the result of the election doubtful. Therefore the election was sustained. Unless the result of an election is changed or rendered doubtful, it will not be set aside on account of mere irregularities or illegalities. Wright v. Board of Canvassers, 76 S.C. 588, 57 S.E. 536; Birchmore v Canvassers (S. C.) 59 S.E. 146. It is likewise well settled that as to findings of fact the state board of canvassers is a tribunal of last resort. Ex parte Whipper, 32 S.C. 5, 10 S.E. 579. Therefore, unless we are able to discover error in their conclusions of law, the petition must be dismissed.

We consider first the question as to whether or not the board of commissioners of election for state and county officers could properly hold the election. The only possible determination of the question seems so clear that it seems a waste of time to consider it. It will be observed that the statute creating the two boards of commissioners makes them absolutely separate. Each is given power to...