The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-01-03
MEMS MANDAMUS.
JUDGE MONROE DEClDEs THAT T&E
ST. NARY RETURNS MUST ne
PROMULGATED.

The suit Of II. B. Menu vs. the Secretary OF State
wherein application is made for mandamus
to promulgate the returns OF the parish OF st.
Mary. was decided by Judge Monroe as follows:
Relator alleges that at the general election held
upon the bth OF November. 1878. he was elected
Judge OF the Parish Court for the Parish OF 81.
Mary. and that due return was made OF said
election by the sheriff Of said parish to the Bec-
retary Of State. but that the Ee0retary OF State
falls and refuses to promuleate the results OF
said election, as provided By law. and that a
writ OF mandamus Ia necessary. etc.
He. therefore. prays that a writ OF
mandamus issue. directing the said Sec
retary OF State to premulgate the returns
OF the election Of parish Judge aforesaid. The
Secretary OF State for answer and return says,
that he has never received from the returninR
officer OF the parish OF st. Mary such returns
Of the election as the Law REQUIRES. and that he
does not consider y bis duty to compile and
iufther, that the sheriff Of said parish who is
fM cSmpaoo 1ss Il s 2o. % 4 p de-
sh at said election. duly attested an aul henti-
Gated. hut that be failed % send herewith The
K. ss ss s, R u5sas 55saneS 8, BY law sw Tss
deposited with the clerk OF court were subse-
quently brought to RESPONDENT by said clerk.
correcting his first report so far as the vote for
State Senator 10 concerned and basing the cor.
rection upon an alleged mistake In the addition
Dreon he u third ward ss o sad pasS but
that your respondent not thinking that he had
the right 10 determine the question necessarily
still declines. unless ordered by this honorable
court, to make the compilation and promuiga-
ton required by law. Resp 1ndent further ayers
The O. clerks oflce reached him was Was IRE Irregular H
and Illegal, and that the appearance OF said lists
such a. tsxs 70 create eon s %hd fear ha
which hs prays the oSHrs r. make naay
s O. hs hsTf hs e 1 hf sss not sss s b
companied by the tally. lists. The affidavit re-
ferred % b.. the respondent as having been sub
denoe Counsel ior relator offered The sheriffs he
return, which elbows the election OF the relator
as set forth In his petition also the tally sheets
llled In his office by the clerk Of the District
on the stand testified that on the night OF The
original tally lists. Which had been so dsIiyered r
by the sheriff. were destroyed; that is to say,
the oce n Thch hsi q hsy were a dspGsea VI;
tally lists scattered about the next day.
He further testified that the. lists offered In
ass na When nfa Sa9 g.
him in the office OF the Secretary Of State
An examination OF the law governing this
he presence or absence OF the tally list or their
condition when received. has very little, II any
hing to do with the obIgation imposed By the
OF the result Of the election. His
The court has looked fn vain for. some provi-
Ins tie oblsaon IMPOSED b ihs sscion II a'ins rs
nle Fgafss S tss fect o
lists were not even required to be forwarded To
!he secrstary Of state. section 50 (which is still
Ia iorce) REQUIRES the commiseioners at each
which Is rsauirsd to Be- delivered 70 the fSs clere of
The district court and the other to the sheriff.
~ seeon 2. s nS , ss%sndng
provided: THAT II shall be the duty OF the re-.
turning officer Of each parish to make out tri.
court In whose oflce the ballot boxes are depos-
ted to be correct. He shall forward one oil these
returns and the tally sheets from which II Is
he snail deliver hs oher e. Ss
,f them to the Secretary OF State and shall nie |
This is the only proyision which the court has |
,een able to find which In any manner connects |
,hs Secretary 9f State or his duties with the
ally sheets. The law says that they are to be- |
,ent by him toit The returns and the law further
provides, as We have already seen, that be shall
,2mpis gn,I the rssurns end publish the result as
. made to the lily lists In the section Imposing
IN him the duty OF promulgation. Upon the |
contrary he II required. under penalty. 10 pub |
ish the result as shown By the returns" aud 1t |
8 Idle to suppose. under these circumstances. |
bat the legislature undertook that he should |
10 governed by the tally lists. which under the |
aw as 1t stood In 1877. were not required to be |
forwarded to him.
II this be true. how can the failure OF the |
herih TO send the tally lists affect the duty OF
he respondent to publish the result as shown |
~ the returns, which were forwarded, and |
which. saving that they are unaccompanfe by 1
he tally sheets, are not objected to for irregu-
arity. such failure may prevent some con- |
ally lists for the purpose OF evidence but 10 /
loes not. In the opinion Of the court relieve the
be returns and from publishing the result.
1t fs, therefore. ordered that the mandamus /
% made peremptory. at the cost OF the respon-
lent.