Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1882-12-18
THE ELECTION CONTEST.
THE CASE HEARD BEFORE PRO.
BATE JUDGE DILLEY.
Points Made by the Defendants Attor-
ney-The Decision In Favor Of the De.


ney-The Decision In Favor Of the De.
Tense.
The case of ]. X. Morrill, vs. Messrs.
Lewis and Leadley, contesting their
elections as County Commissioners,
came up before Judge Dilley last
Saturday morning, A. J. MCGOWAN
appearing for the prosecution, and
Texas Angel for Mr.. Leadley.
Mr.. Angel moved to quash the pro-
ceedings, on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction over the
subject-matter Of the proceeding.
The proceeding was begun under sec
ton 80 of the old election law, con-
tanned in the Revised Laws of 1919,
p. 693, which provides that "all con-
tests of county and precinct Office S
shall be tried i'll the proper county,
and when any elector all wish tc
contest such election, he shall Gle with
the Clerk of tho Board of County
Commissioners, within ten days after
such person shall have been declared
elected statement in writing, speci-
flying the grounds of contest, verified
by affidavit, and such clerk shall is
sue to the contestant a notice, to ap
pear at the time and place specified
in the notice, before the Probate
Court, which notice, with a copy of
the statement, shall be delivered to
the Sheriff, who shall within FIVE DAYS
serve the same on the Constable by
delivering him copy Of such notice,
or by leaving it at his usual place OF
residence. T."
Section 80 of same act prescribes
the mode of trial of such contest, and
that upon Judgment being rendered in
favor of the contestant, the Clerk OF
the Board shall issue to him certi6-
cate of election, which shall be con.
elusive evidence Of the right Of said
person to hold office.
The reasons urged in support of the
point that the Court had no jurisdic
ton were, that by the adoption of tn
Code Of Civil Procedure at the ses
sion Of the Legislative Assembly il
the year 1881, the old statute unde
which this proceeding was commence
was abrogated and repealed, and
new statute passed as part of tn
code, which took the place of tn
former statute. This case not havin
been brought under the new statute
and not coming within the province G
it, the Court could not entertain iuris
diction.
Section IA of the Code of Civ
Procedure, laws of 1881, p. 3, read
as follows: "No statute, law, or rule
is continued in force because it is con
sistent with the provisions of thi
Code on the same subject; but in a.
cases provided for by this code, Al
statutes, laws and rules heretofore il
force in this Territory, whether con
sistent or not with the provisions O
this Code, unless expressly continues
in force by it, are repealed and abro
gated"
The new statute regarding contest
ed elections before the Probate Cour
allows a contest to be made on certain
special grounds, and is limited to tn
cases specified, such as: l. Malcon
duct on the part of the Board o
Judges, or ally member thereof. 2
When person whose right to the of
fee is contested was not, at the tim,
of tie election, eligible to such Office
3. When the person whose right i
contested has given or offered brib'
or reward to any Election Inspector
Judge or Clerk of Election, or has of
fered any such bride or reward for tn
purpose Of procuring his election, o
has committed any other offens
against the elective franchise defne'
by law. 4. On account of illega
votes.
i In such cases this law provides tina
any elector may contest an election
on either OF these grounds before tn
Probate Court by filing in Court
written statement, ETC., which is in tn
nature of a complaint setting fort
the grounds Of contest.
Under the old statute the part
l..