State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 21 May 1888
• Citation: 8 S.W. 415,95 Mo. 159
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HAMMERSTEIN v. WILLIAMS, Recorder of Voters, et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 415

95 Mo. 159

STATE ex rel. HAMMERSTEIN v. WILLIAMS, Recorder of Voters, et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May 21, 1888.

ELECTIONS — COUNTING VOTE — MISNOMER — MANDAMUS.

Where, in an election, votes were given for Matthew Ryan, Mattias Ryan, and M. Ryan, and the recorder counted them as for one person, Matthew Ryan, mandamus to compel him to count the votes as given for separate persons will not lie, there being no averment that Matthew Ryan, Mattias Ryan, and M. Ryan are not the same person.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. VALLIANT, Judge.

Berry & Richey, for appellant. Hough, Overall & Judson, for respondents.

NORTON, C. J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus, in which it is alleged in the alternative writ that, at an election held in the city of St. Louis, the relator, Hammerstein, was a candidate for the office of member of the house of delegates. That at said election he received the highest number of votes cast for an, one person at said election. That the returns of the judges and clerks of the election showed that he did receive the highest number of votes for the said office, as follows: For this relator, 476 votes; for Matthew Ryan, 374 votes; for ______ Ehrman, 254 votes; for J. A. Lynch, 213 votes; for M. Ryan, 68 votes; and for Mattias Ryan, 35 votes. That the respondents were the duly-qualified board of election canvassers. That, in fraud of the rights of this relator, the respondents were proceeding to count, and, unless prevented from so doing, would add the votes returned for M. Ryan and Mattias Ryan, respectively, to the votes returned for Matthew Ryan, and would certify, contrary to the returns, that Matthew Ryan had received 477 votes, when the said returns showed that he had received but 374 votes. The writ directs the respondents to count and certify the votes cast for Ryan as being cast for different persons, or show cause why it should not be done. The respondents moved to quash for the following reasons: First, the facts therein stated are not sufficient to authorize this court to compel the defendants to obey the commands of the writ; second, it does not appear from the writ that M. Ryan, Mattias Ryan, and Matthew Ryan are not one and the same person. The motion was sustained, and relator has appealed.

It needs no citation of authorities to establish the proposition that the duty of respondents, in canvassing the returns of said election, are purely ministerial, and that words readily distinguishable...