Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-07-29
ANDERSON VS.. GOSSETT.


Chancellor staley's Opinion in the Case.
On yesterday, in the Chancery Court,
Judge Staley delivered an opinion in the
case of the State of Tennessee er relatione |
of w. A. Anderson against G. B. Gossett,
which was instituted as our readers will re-
member, shortly after the August election
of 1880. We regret not being able to pre-
sent to our readers the opinion of the
chancellor, but he declined to let us have
it, as it was not prepared for publication
1t would have rendered unnecessary any
repetition of or comment upon the facts
out of which the suit arose, as these were
fully stated and considered by the court.
The case was argued about two weeks
ago by Messrs. Ingerson and Webb for the
relator, and by Lewis Tiilman, jr., for the
| defendant, and was held under considera-
ton by the chancellor till yesterday morn
ing. The result of the opinion may be
briefly stated:
| /. The court has jurisdiction to try and
| determine the matters of controversy, and
| therefore the demurrer of the defendant is
| overruled.
q The case is not contest of the elec
| ton, and therefore the evidence introduced
be defendant, showing illegal votes for An
| derson, is incompetent and cannot be
looked to in the determination of the
| cause.
8. The election laws are in great confu-
sion, and badly need revision, but by reason
| of long established custom, certified taley-
sheets accompanying poll-books must be
leceived as ''returns," where there Is moth
ing more formal made out by the judges
and officers of elections.
| f. The duties of sheriff or other re-
| turning officer are purely ministerial; and
that he has no Judicial powers whatever.
| He cannot correct errors, or adjudicate
upon the validity of the election, or reject
single ballot. The mental operation of
computing the vote and the manual act of
issuing the certificate exhaust his powers"
S. Mr. Reeder, the returning officer, fol
lowed the law wnen he counted 138 votes to
Anderson in the First ward instead of 139,
as was claimed for him in the bill"
g. The tally-sheet from the Fifth ward,
accompanying the poll books, must be re-
ceived as a return; and therefore the action
of the officers of election at that ward, in
making an amended return on the day after
the election, was illegal, and con-
sequently the sheriff in looking to
and counting from said amended
return was illegal. Hence the returning
officer should have given to Gossett in that
ward 189 votes, instead of 100.
7. The figures opposite Gossett's name
on the tally-sheets from the Sth ward are
either "a or IS. No one, looking to them
alone, can certainly say which. But the
tally marks on one sheet count out "a. In
the absence of a formal return, the court
holds that the tally marks should have been
looked to, to determine the figures; and
therefore that Gossett only received "a votes
instead of IS as counted to him by Sheriff
!, Reeder.
These rulings give to Anderson 1858
, votes and to Gossett 3,567-a majority of
one to Anderson.
The chancellor holds that there
' is nothing in the record to sus
tain the charges Of the bill that there
aOas any cO1lusion 6etaoeen Reeder and Cos
sett to def aud and cheat anderson; on til,
: contrary he expressed the opinion that thes
had acted honestly in the matter.
The case will be appealed to the Supreme
Court. The solicitors for Gossett feel con
fident that the Chancery Court has no juris
diction of the cause. But to have the Su
preme Court SO hold it must oyerrule
4 former decision The Chancellor intimatec
! that he would have held differently on tht
question of jurisdiction, if he had not fel
himself bound by the opinion of the Su-
preme Court.
There is an erroneous impression prevail
:, ing as to the nature of this cause. EUe'
cellor StaGey it ,oou1d not settle that andersen
o aoas in fact legally elected sheriff
i, 1t would only settle that he wa
entitled to the certificate of election. Mr.
: Gossett could contest the matter with hin
a in another and different proceeding.
n If Anderson (even after decision in hi
= favor in the Supreme Court, if such b.
q. given should sue Gossett for the fees o
e the Office, Gossett could reply, ''You wer
q not legally elected" and might then shov
:. the fact, and establish his owl
K right. In such suit, the evi
@ dence of illegal votes for Anderson, of whicl
Y proof has been made in the chancery cause
u but which was not looked to by the court
would certainly be competent.
In other words, as we understand it, tn
: present suit, no matter how it may result il
S the Supreme Court, does not determine tn
real right to the Office, but merely the pr5
ma facie right. We venture tt
say that in this respect
is most anomalous And it is so because o
e an opinion of the Supreme Court on (
t question about which the judges differed.
q 1t would seem that after parties have liti
8 gated for two years, that something ou gh
f to be settled as to their real rights, but sucl
= is not the case in this suit
e If the real right to the Office should b.
d determined in the Supreme Court there cal
U be no doubt that Gossett will receive it, fol
he has evidence to show a number of i1ega
y votes for Anderson.
Mr.. Anderson's solicitors framed his bill
so as to avoid all investigation into the
facts Of the eE ctson, and risk the case en-
d tirely upon question Of Ia~ which was ST
y doubtful, that the learned judges of the
n Supreme Court were at difference, Judges
r Nicholson and Turney holding with the
b position of defendants solicitors in this
C case.
Y Dyspepsia, the bug-bear of epicureans
# will be relieved by Browns Iron Bitters.