Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-06-18
H MANDAMus CASE.
Decision Rendered by Judge Reeves
Yesterday.
He Decides the Law in Favor Of Wal
lace, but Declares he has
no Recourse.

Below we present to our readers the de-
cision of his Honor Judge Reeves, of the
Circuit Court, in the case of Wallace VS..
Williams, on application for a peremptory
writ of mandamus:
It will be seen that the Court has de-
cided every legal proposition i'm favor of
/ Gen. Wallace and would have awarded
the writ of peremptory mandamus but for
| the fact that the Judges of the Election
had so made out their returns that it was
impossible for Williams 10 discriminate
between the legal and the Illegal votes,
all having been summed up and the total
given.
This decision gives positive assurance
of Gen. Wallace's right to the office, and
no doubt can now be entertained as to the
result of the proceedings instituted by
himtO contest the election in the Chan
Gerry Court. The object had in view by
Gen. Wallace in APPLYING for a mandamus
was to prevent, il possible, the induction
of Hudson into office, knowing fun well
that occupying the office he would pro-
tract the litigation by appeal and other
wise, for an indefinite time, and thu de-
prive Gen. Wallace of his seat upon the
bench and foist himself upon a people
who, in the face of innumerable frauds by
him and his party, fairly defeated him by
several hundred majority. But as Office
is all hat Hudson and many otheTs of
his ilk crave, we need not be surprised to
see hin usurpingthe judicial ermine with
sacraligious hands and disgracing the po-
sition long since prOstituted by his imme-
diate predecessor.
The following is the decision:
1st. That all votes cast at the late Judi
cial election by voters residing without
the Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Civil Districts of this county to
vote for any candidate for the office of
Criminal Judge were illegal; that the
Code, section Al, refers to the acts of 1885,
which fixes the limits and bound of the iu-
risdiction of the Criminal Court and the
voters therein, and that the subsequent
acts of 1868 and go, extending the jurisdic-
lion of the said Court to all o6enses COM
mitted within the county against the Rev
enue Laws, did not extend the right of
franchise with it.
I'd. That the Commissioner Of Registra-
ton could not go behind the sworn returns
of the Judges of Election, who are, under
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
State, judicial officers; that the acts of
such officers could only be reviewed in a
case of contested election.
Sd. That the Court could not compel the
returning officer to do what the law prohi-
bits; that it would be a misdemeanor for
the Sheriff, or returning officer as the case
may be, to take out the poll boxes, or any
ballots placed there by the Judges of
Election, they being acompetent Court to
determine the qualifications of voters.
4th. That owing 10 the failure of the
Judges and Clerks of the election, acting
under the instructions of the Registrar,
to keep the different classes of votes in
such a manner as TO be able to designate
in their returns the locality of each voter,
the Commissioner vas unable 10 do his
duty as prescribed by the Code.
The Court therefore ordered that the de-
PENDANT be discharged from his answer,
and that the peremptoTy mandamus be
denied the petitioner. That the rule re
straining the Commissioner from making
and forwarding his returns to the Secre-
tary Of State be set aside. and for nOught
held. and that he make said returns ac-
cnrdingly. .r