State v. Mingo County Court

• Decision Date: 18 May 1920
• Docket Number: 4111.
• Citation: 103 S.E. 368,86 W.Va. 517
• Parties: STATE EX REL. WHITE v. MINGO COUNTY COURT ET AL.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

103 S.E. 368

86 W.Va. 517

STATE EX REL. WHITE v. MINGO COUNTY COURT ET AL.

No. 4111.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

May 18, 1920

Submitted May 17, 1920.

Syllabus by the Court.

Mandamus is given by statute as a remedy to compel registrars and county courts to make proper registration of voters for election purposes.

Such registration being a public matter, a citizen, voter, and taxpayer has such interest in it as enables him to invoke mandamus to compel proper performance thereof by the officers charged with the duty.

If registrars disagree about the eligibility of voters for registration, when proceeding or acting under section 98a(3) c. 3, Code 1918 (Code Supp. 1918, c. 3, § 98a. III. [sec 123]), in consequence of which the list of one contains names not on the other, and the registrar from whose list the names in question have been omitted has refused to put them on, it is the duty of the county court to do so, before it begins the work of revision and correction of the registration for that precinct.

Original mandamus by the State, on the relation of M. Z. White against the County Court of Mingo County and others. Writ awarded.

Goodykoontz Scherr & Slaven, of Williamson, for relator.

W. H. Bronson, of Williamson, for respondents.

POFFENBARGER J.

The registrars of voters in three precincts in Mingo county having disagreed as to the eligibility of persons for registration, in their procedure under section 98a (3), c. 3, Code 1918 (Code Supp. 1918, c. 3, § 98a. III. [[sec. 123]), the names on one list for one precinct exceeded those on the other by about 150, in another precinct by about 23, and in another by about 15. Instead of adding these names to the duplicate or other lists, the county court of that county requires the eligibility of each omitted person to be shown as a condition precedent to entry of his name on the list from which it was omitted. The relator seeks a writ of mandamus requiring that body to reconcile the lists by addition of the omitted names.

Mandamus is a proper remedy, notwithstanding the right of appeal the statute purports to give, for mandamus also is expressly given as a remedy by section 16 of the Registration Act. (Code Supp. 1918, c. 3, § 98a. XVI. [[sec. 136]).

Since registration of voters is a public matter, the relator, as a citizen, voter, and taxpayer, has indubitable right to compel performance of the duty.

The duty he seeks...