Case ID: nc_150/html/0693-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clark, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. M. THRASH et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY.
    (Filed 21 May, 1909.)
    School District — County Board of Education — Special Tax — Proceedings — Regularity Presumed — Burden of Proof — Instructions.
    In an action to impeach the validity of a local election for the levy of a special tax the presumption of law is in favor of the regularity of the conduct of the authorities, with the burden on the objecting party to show the contrary; and when the regular filing of the petition and the order for the election by the county commissioners, and their confirmation of the election, are shown, no irregularity appearing, it is not error for the judge to charge the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the plaintiffs had not made out a case.
    AotioN for mandamus and injunction, beard before Ward, J., and a jury, at November Term, 1908, of TbansvlvaNIA.
    Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      W. B. Duckworth and George A. Shuford for plaintiffs.
    
      Shepherd & Shepherd and W. W. Zachery for defendants.
   Clark, C. J.

Tbis was an action to impeach the validity of a local election for tbe levy of a special tax in a special school district, held under the provisions of Revisal, sec. 4115, and the amendment thereto in '1907. The petition of the freeholders, approved by the county board of education, was regularly filed before the county commissioners, who ordered the election. The report of ’the judges of election was confirmed by the county commissioners.

At the close of the evidence, his Honor, intimating that he would instruct the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the plaintiffs had not made out a case, they thereupon took a non-suit and appealed.

Tbe presumption of law is in favor of tbe regularity of tbe conduct of tbe authorities, and tbe burden was upon tbe plaintiff to sbow tbe contrary. Quinn v. Lattimore, 120 N. C., 426. A careful examination of tbe testimony causes us to concur witb tbe judge below. There being no legal proposition involved, but merely an examination of tbe evidence, it can serve no purpose to recapitulate it.

No Error.