Tucker v. Meroney

• Citation: 32 S.W.2d 631,182 Ark. 681
• Decision Date: 17 November 1930
• Docket Number: 233
• Parties: TUCKER v. MERONEY
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

32 S.W.2d 631

182 Ark. 681

TUCKER v. MERONEY

No. 233

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 17, 1930

Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court; W. B. Sorrels, Special Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

R. W Wilson and Danaher & Danaher, for appellant.

A. J Johnson, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, C. J.

This appeal is prosecuted by J. G. Tucker to reverse a judgment dismissing his complaint in a contested election case.

J. G. Tucker and T. M. Meroney were rival candidates for the nomination of sheriff of Lincoln County in the Democratic primary election held on the 12th day of August, 1930. The Democratic Central Committee duly canvassed the returns, and found that T. M. Meroney had received 932 votes and that J. G. Tucker had received 924 votes. The committee declared that T. M. Meroney had received a majority of the votes cast at the election, and the certificate of nomination was issued to him. The record shows that the collector did not file with the county clerk a list of poll taxpayers, duly authenticated by his affidavit as required by § 3740 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, and this fact is conceded by the contestant. The record also shows that 36 votes were cast in the manner provided in § 3777 of the Digest by persons who have attained the age of twenty-one years since the time of assessing taxes next preceding the election, and that of these votes twenty-six were cast for Tucker and ten for Meroney.

It is the contention of counsel for appellant that these were the only legal votes cast, and that, inasmuch as a majority of them were cast for Tucker, he should have been declared the nominee, and that the certificate of nomination should have been issued to him. We do not agree with contestant in this contention. The official returns of the election are quasi records, and are prima facie correct. The burden is upon the contestant to show by affirmative proof that they do not speak the truth. Powell v. Holman, 50 Ark. 85, 6 S.W. 505; Webb v. Bowden, 124 Ark. 244, 187 S.W. 461; and Craig v. Sims, 160 Ark. 269, 255 S.W. 1.

These returns may be impeached by any competent evidence showing that they are not true. In Brown v. Nisler, 179 Ark. 178, 15 S.W.2d 314, it was held that the requirement of § 3777 of the Digest that no person offering to vote in a primary election shall be allowed to vote unless his name appears in the printed list of poll tax payers, required by § 3740, or unless he exhibits a poll tax receipt, or establishes that he has attained his majority since the last assessing time, is mandatory, and that its provisions must be substantially complied with. Bearing in mind that the official returns are quasi records and stand with all the force of presumptive regularity as held in the cases cited above until overcome by competent evidence, it will be readily seen that the contestant has not made out his case. All the ballots cast by the voters and returned by the proper officers are presumptively legal, and their verity is not impeached by showing that contestant received a majority of the...