The Russellville Democrat., 1879-06-26
JUDGE HIGHWAYS DECISION.
". E. Young ct als, vs. Applications for Certiori and
 Mandamus. | ..,.. nA al.

J. l.. Shinn, ct als.
 The petition for Mandamas states that the petitioners are citizens and taxpay- CTS of Dover, in Pope County, Ark, andown large amount of real and personal property in Dover. That on the 3d of July 1878 upon the petition of 936 qualified electors of Pope County, the County Court of said county order ed an election to be held on the 2d day of Septemer, 1878, upon the proposition to remove the County Seat from Dover to Russellville or Atkins, and that such election was accordingly held.
 That the clerk of said County at the April term 1879 of the Pope County Court certified and returned that l240 votes had been given at said election for Change or Removal of said County Seat. That of the 1240 votes cast 5i0 were unlawfully counted by athe elec- ton officers.
 That the clerk. after the poll-books of said election had been returned to him permitted the same to be changed to show result of 173 more votes for change than had been given.
 That the election officers unlawfully counted 175 votes ''for Change" when the ballots only had written or printed on them "forIRussellville" without any words indicating either for or against change.
 That the election officers unlawfully counted l10 "for Change" without any words being written or printed on them to indicate the intention of the persons voting the same to vote either for Russellville or Atkins.
 That the election officers unlawfully counted 226 ballots "for Change" which had been given by persons who had not resided l2 monts in the State, 6 months in the County, and one month in the township in which they voted. That it is not true that majority of the qualified electors of Pope County voted at said election for change, and that the Clerks return thereof Is un- true. That at the April term 1879 of the Pope County Court, petitioners af- ter having given notice as by law re- quired presented their petition to con- test said election.
 That the County Court dismissed their said suit for want of jurisdiction. And they prayed an appeal which the County Court refused to grant.
 That the County Court declared the proposition for change had received a majority of the voters ot the qualified electors of said County at said--election, and thereupon ordered an election to be held on the 20th of Juue, 1879 to de- termine whether the County Seat should be removed to Russellville or Atkins. That due notice of the election has been given and uless by the inter- vention of this Court will be held on the 20th of June, 1879 to the great dam- age of plaintiffs. Prayer for an order superseding said election and for all further orders and proceedings in said cause until the further order of the Pope Circuit Court.
 And that the writ of mandamus issue agalnst the County Judge of Pope county commanding him at the July term to make an order granting the appeal as prayed for by petitioners, from the order of said Court dismissing the same at the April term 1879, and to do and perform all other acts necessary to the end that what may be needful may be adjudgcd, Sc,
 The petition for certiorari states sub stantially the same facts as set forth in the petition for mandamus.
 The main question for consideration is. Did the County Court have the ju- risdiction to try and determine the con- test of an election held for the removal of the County site?
 The Constitution Art. z, Sec. 2s pro- vides that "Ihe County Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to County taxes, roads, bridges, ferries, paupers, bastar- dy, vagrants, the apprenticeship of mi- nors, the disbursement of money for County purposes, and in every other case that may be necessary to the inter nal improvement and local concerns of the respective counties"
 The removal of the County site is manifestly "local concern" of the County over which the County Court has exclusive original jurisdiction, and it's authority to determine for itself whether the conditions exist upon which the removal is required is un- questionable Blackburn EXparte 5tn Ark. Fl. Thos. J. Russell Exparte Mss. opinion. Does the section of the Constitution above quoted designate the County Court as the proper tribunal, and clOthe it with the necessary pow CTS, and provide the mode and manner of trying the CONTEST of an election held upon the proposition to remove the County Site, in other words does it confer upon the County Court full pow CT and authority to try and determine such CONTEST without legislative action?