Warrington v. Bobb, 22710.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 22710.,22710.
• Citation: 56 S.W.2d 835
• Parties: WARRINGTON et al. v. BOBB et al., Board of Election Commissioners of St. Louis.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

56 S.W.2d 835

WARRINGTON et al. v. BOBB et al., Board of Election Commissioners of St. Louis.

No. 22710.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 17, 1933.

Rehearing Denied February 24, 1933.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court, Robert W. Hall, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Suit by John G. Warrington and another against Emma J. Bobb and others, as the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Reversed.

Julius T. Muench, City Counselor, and Oliver Senti, First Asst. City Counselor, both of St. Louis, for appellants.

Green, Henry, Remmers & Dearmont, of St. Louis, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, permanently enjoining appellants, as the board of election commissioners of said city, from publishing the lists containing the names and addresses of the voters in the several precincts of the city, commonly known as the registration list, by the process of planographing. The plaintiffs are registered voters and taxpayers in the city.

The controversy between the parties is over the question of whether the publication of the registration list by the process of planographing, as we shall hereinafter describe it, is a compliance with the requirement of section 10592, Rev. Stat. of Mo. 1929 (Mo. St. Ann. § 10592), that the board of election commissioners shall cause such lists to be "printed in plain, large type."

The statute in question is a part of article 17, c. 61, § 10566 et seq., Rev. Stat. of Mo. 1929 (Mo. St. Ann. article 17, c. 61, § 10566 et seq.), which has to do with registrations and elections in cities of 100,000 inhabitants or over. The article as a whole provides in detail for the registration of voters under the supervision of the board of election commissioners, and for a revision of such lists at stated intervals. The particular section (10592), after providing for the completion of the revision and the correction and verification of the lists "so that no other name can be added without discovery," concludes as follows: "And thereupon the board of election commissioners shall at once cause copies to be made of the registers, all of the names upon the same, with the address and registration number not marked erased, and shall have the same arranged according to the streets, avenues, courts or alleys, commencing with the lowest number, and arranging the same in order according to street numbers, and shall then cause such precinct register, under such arrangement, to be printed in plain, large type, in sufficient numbers to meet all demands; and upon application, a copy of the same shall be given to any person in such precinct."

There is but little dispute in the evidence. It appears to have been the long-established practice of the succeeding boards of election commissioners, when the registration lists were to be printed, to invite bids from representative printing houses in the city capable of handling the work, and then to let the contract to the lowest and best bidder. In the fall of 1932, when the present controversy arose, the same course was followed, and the contract was awarded to a concern whose bid contemplated the doing of the work by the process of planographing, a less expensive method than ordinary printing, as is evidenced by the fact that the bid was for a sum approximating $1,000 less than that of the next lowest bidder.

As has been heretofore indicated, the basis of this suit is the contention that planographing is not printing within the contemplation of the statute directing the board of election commissioners to cause the lists to be "printed in plain, large type." The prayer was for an injunction, enjoining defendants, the board of election commissioners, from carrying out the contract entered into with the successful bidder, and also from causing said lists, as well as the lists for future elections, to be prepared by the process of planographing or in any manner other than by printing in plain, large type.

In due course defendants filed their answer, setting up, among other things, that the preparation of the lists by the process of planographing was a full compliance with all the requirements of the statute.

After a hearing, the court granted plaintiffs relief as prayed in the petition; and, from the judgment rendered, defendants have duly appealed, assigning the adverse finding and judgment of the court as error.

The testimony shows that planographing is an "offset" process by which the impression on the paper is taken from an intermediate rubber cylinder instead of directly from the printing surface itself. As described in the record, it appears that the original copy, whether printed or typed, is photographed, and the negative is placed in contact with a sensitized zinc plate to which heat is applied. The zinc plate is then developed and treated chemically, and put upon a cylinder press from which the design is transferred to a rubber cylinder, and from that to the paper by pressure. In other words, there are three cylinders in order, the top or zinc plate, the middle or rubber blanket, and the bottom impression where the blank paper goes. As the three cylinders rotate, the zinc cylinder takes the ink from the inking rollers, separates it by a chemical process so that...