Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1871-02-07
Chancellor Morgan decides the
Shrievalty Question In Favor
OF A. p. Curry.

] The First Chaneery Courtroom was
densely crowded this morning by citi-
zens anxious to hear the decision Of this
important contested election, case, The
opinion Of Chancellor Morgan is as fol
lows
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The STATE on q the S. relation Of IrIRg 81
Marcus j. Wright
The facts necessary to be stated are
briefly these:
On the 25th of March, 1870, at the
regular election of county officers, which
was held by the Commissioner Of Regis
tration (Shock), Curry and Wright were
opposing candidates for the Office of
Shelby county.
The election was held by judges and
clerks, appointed by the Commissioner,
and at places designated by said Com
missioner.
The judges and clerks of the various
voting places made their returns to the
Commissioner of Registration, and re-
turned the poll books to the Offices Of the
Clerks Of the County and Circuit Courts.
The Commissioner of Registration,
after comparing the polls, made out a
tabular statement in the nature Of re-
turn and filed the same in the Office of
the Clerk Of the County Court This
tabular Statement embraced the vote for
all the candidates voted for at the cleo
ton, and included the vote for Curry and
Wright as Sheriff. By that return it was
shown that Curry received 4793 votes,
and Wright 46l7-thus making Curry S
majority 176 votes. This return was
received and spread upon the minutes
of the Court on the 9th day of April,
1870. 1t is also charged and admitted
that the Commissioners made out GER
tificate of election for Curry, but did not
deliver the same. After the return was
made, it is shown that Curry appeared
before the County Court and offered to
take the oath of Office and give the re-
quisite, bonds. This was on the 9th of
April, 1870. Previous to and subsequent
to this time, actions and contradictions
were brought by the parties. 1t is not
necessary now to mention them.
On the 9th of April, 1870, the County
Court postponed action on the case until
the 18th. On the 18th of April the Com
missioner Of Registration filed in the
County Court what he termed an
amended return of the election. This
return is the same as the former return,
with the exception of clerical correc-
ton of ten votes, embracing, as the for
mer, tabular statement of the votes
from all the precincts for all the candi-
dates that ran for office at the election.
To this tabular statement were appended
the following words: II reject the re-
turns made to me from the Tenth Ward
of the city of Memphis for the reason
that there is no voting place legally es-
tablished in the said Tenth Ward. Throw
ing out the votes of the Tenth Ward,
deduct from the aggregate vote of A. P.
Curry 402 votes, which leaves his aggre-
gate vote in the county 1891. also de-
duct 40 votes from NJ. j. Wright, which
leaves his aggregate vote in the county
1878, making the majority for Wright
1877 votes. .aftA IQ li-a
At the time this amended statement
was made, the Commissioner gave Wright
the following certificate of election:
AT general election held in Shelby
county, State Of Tennessee, on the 26th
day of March, 1870, it appears from q
comparison of the polls returned from
the legally constituted precincts of the
county of Shelby--rejecting the returns
from the Tenth Ward Of the city of Mem
phis because no voting place has been
legally established in the said Tenth
Ward-that Marcus J. Wright was duly
elected to the office of Sheriff Of Shelby
county, Tennessee. .uHIaAI 1.I.ud
Witness my hand at Memphis
Shelby county, State of Tennessee, this
2Sth day of March, 1870.
"GSigned. s. H. SHOCK"
1t is not contended that this certificate
was issued on the day it bears date. Tit
amended return was not made until the
18th or 18th Of April. Upon the pre-
sentation of this certificate to the County
Court on the 18th of April, 1870, Marcus
j. Wright was sworn into Office, and gave
his bonds, etc. Hn.iI1 -ts
Previous to Wright's induction into
Office he filed in the Circuit Court his
bill for contesting the election. This
bill has. been dismissed by Wright After
Wright induction into office the present
bill was filed by Curry. This bill is flee
under title 2, chap. 8 of the Code, and If
an information in the nature of quo
warranto. Section 3409 authorizes &C
ton whenever any person unlawfully
holds or, exercises, any public office
The suit is brought by the Attorney Gen
eral, and may also be brought by section
34l3, on the information Of any person
giving security for cost Section 34l9 Of
the Code is as follows: Whenever the
action is against a person for usurpine
an Office, in addition to the other allega'
tons, the name of the person rightfully
entitled to the Office, with statement o.
his rights thereto, may be added, and
the trial should, if practicable, determine
the right of the contesting parties.
Section 1923 says: 1.-THE validity Of
any election which may be contested
under this Code cannot be tried under
the provisions of this chapter.
1t is upon proper construction Of
these two sections that an important
branch of this case depends. Indeed, Il
the construction given by defendant
Wright, be correct, the bill must be dis
missed and Curry remanded to con
test in another shape.
The writ of quo warranto was not IN
force in this State until within recent
years by statute, information in the
nature Of quo warranto has been
adopted In most of the States in this
Union there are statutes similar to the
one now under consideration. But none
that ] have been able 10 find have the
provision contained in section 342S
Hence, in almost oil the States, all con
tests over elections are tried by the wri
of quo warranto. In some Of the State:
there is double remedy-by quo war
ranto and by regular action Of contest
alt is manifest TO my mind that we can