Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1885-12-24
THE REASONS THEY GIVE.
The Syllabus of the Supreme Courts
Decision in the Hamilton County
Petitions in Error.

Petitions in Error.
The following is the syllabus of the
decision of Judges Owen. Follett and
Atherton in the Hamilton county sena-
torial and representative cases:
Daniel J. Dalton, clerk, ct al. Y. The
State ex rel. Richardson. Error to the
Circuit court Of Hamilton county.
OWN, j.:
l. Under the provisions of section 29S1
! Rev. Stat.), defining the duties of the
canvassers of election returns, which re-
quire that ''in making the abstracts OF
votes they shall not decide upon the
validity Of the returns. but shall be gov
erned by the number of votes stated in
the poll-bOoks," the duties of such cam
vassers are merely ministerial and they
have no power to decide such returns,
or any part of them. invalid by reason of
fraud az the election or in the returns
thereof as made to the clerk; and have
no power to exclude such returns,o or any
part thereof, from the count for such
reason.
?. In a mandsmus proceeding to COM
pei such canvassers to omit certain votes
for candidates for the General Assem-
bly, from the abstracts, the court has no
power to decide upon the validity of
such returns; and it is error for the
court, in such proceeding, to decide, or
to command the canvassers TO decide,
such returns, or any part thereof, inval>
i'd by reason of such fraud.
3. The remedy in such case is by cons
test before that branch of the General
Assembly for which the party affected
as candidate, and that remedy is eXclu-
sive.
4. In such mandamus proceeding the
court has no power, where there is an
excess of votes above the number of
names of voters upon the poll books, to
command the canvassers to reject all
such excess above ten Ito be divided
pToportionately between the two parties)
and to count all below ten; or to COM
mand them that in case the excess is
large enough to show fraud, to reject
the entire returns. where they would af4
feet the general refult, and simply to
deduct the excess where the general re>
suit would not be affected thereby; such
court having no power to control, de
stroy or limit the exercise of discretion
in public officer by a writ of man
damus.
5. The scope and Office of a writ
of mandamuS is dehnod by section Gal
| (Rev. Stat.l: "Mandamus is a writ is
sued in the name of the state to an infe+
rioI tribunal, corporation, board OF
person, commanding the performance of
an act which the law specially enjoins
as duty resulting from an Office, trust
or station;' and where the canvass of
the retHrns for county is nearly com
] pleted and writ of mandamus is ap-
piled for to command the canI assers to
omit certain specified returns and votes
for candidate to the General Assem-
bly, from the abstracts, the court whose
action is invoked has no power to pro-
ceed to make complete canvass of the
returns from all the peecincts of the
county, make an abstract thereof, decide
which candidates are elected, and issue
writ of mandamus commanding the
canvassers to adopt such result as their
own, and commanding the clerk to issue
certificates to the candidates so decided
to be eleceed.
6. The jurisdiction which article II,
section 6, of the General Assembly to
Judge of the election, returns and quail
iicatioDs of its own members" exclusive
| Z. A pretended judicial determination
of any other tribunal in form deciding
that a candidate for either house is
elected is nulIity.
Judgment reversed.
johnson, j., dissented.