Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-05-08
THE SUPREME COURT.
IMPORTANT CASES DECIDED.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EieeteraI.Beard Law
'ahd-Attornes-Geusrai Blair TO set His
saiary, ke., kc., &c.

Andsrssn-MeCormtck Eiectoral-Beard Law
| id-Auorney-Gessrai Blair TO set His
saisry, ke., kc., &e.
The Court Of Appeals yesterday de-
cided the case of Frayser rs. Delarue,
and thereby affirmed the validity of the
election by the Legislature Of the cleo
toral boards for the various counties
and cities Of the State pursuant to the
act in force November 90, 1884. The
third section of the act provides as fol-
lows: 1.-THE General Assembly may
elect said electoral boards for each and
all the counties and cities by one or
more joint resolutions. as the General
Assembly may see fit." The petitioner,
Frayser, was chosen registrar for one Of
the yoting-places Of this city by the
City Electoral Board, and thereupon de-
manded Of Delarue, the former incum.
bent, the books and papers of the Of
flee, which were refused. on the ground
that the joint resolution of the Legisla-
ture by which the Electoral Board was
chosen was not presented to the Gov
ernor, and that therefore the appoint
ment of the petitioner as registrar was
without authority Of law and void.
Application was then made TO the Court
Of Appeals for writ of mandamus to
compel the delivery of the books and
papers of the Office to the petitioner,
and the case was deliberately argued by
ex-Judge Waller K. Staples and Chris
tian q Christian for the petitioner, and
by Captain John s. Wise for the re-
spondent.
Itwas insisted for the respondent that
the Joint resolution by which the Electo-
raj Board was chosen was Of no effect.
because not presented to the Governor
pursuant to the provisions of section 8
Of Artice ". Of the Constitution. which
requires that every resolution requi-
ring the assent Of both branches of the
General Assembly shall before 1t becomes
a lac be presented TO the Governor,
etc. But the court held that the act of
electing the electoral boards did not par
take of the nature Of legislation, but
was merely administrative in its char
acter, and that, therefore, whether pre-
sented to the Governor or not, could not
become lar" " in the sense in which
the term is used in the Constitution.
Objection was also made TO the
validity Of the act providing for choosing
electoral boards on the ground that it
requires Of certain of the officers for
which it provides qualifications in addi-
tion to the qualifications for officers
prescribed by the Consttution--name-
ly, that they shall be able to read and
write" But the objection was not
sustained. Judges Lewis and Lacy
holding that the qualification being es-
sential to discharge the duties imposed
by the act could be prescribed by the
Legislature, not by reason of any cx-
press provision Of the Constitution, but
by fair and reasonable implications
therefrom. Judge Hinton was of opinion
that the constitutional provision that
"all persons entitled to vote shall he
eligible to any Office within the gift of
the people except as restricted in this
Constitution" applies only to Offices to
be filed by popular vote. The writ
was accordingly awarded.
Judges Fauntleroy and Richardson
dissented.
HALLS FREE SCHOOL, HANOVER.
The court also decided the case of
the Trustees of Halls Free School rs.
Horne, treasurer Of Hanover county.
The trustees applied for writ Of man
damus to compel the respondent tC pay
over to them the sum of $50. The
claim was founded on an act Of the
General Assembly approved December
/, 1884. The act directs the super
intendent of public schools in the
county Of Hanover to pay over in each
and every year out Of the school quota
for Beaver-Dam district to the trustees
of Halls Free School a sum equal to
the salary paid TO any teacher of
school in said district whose school has
a like attendance Of scholars, to be by
them applied to the support of said
Halls Free School
The trustees Of the school were in-
corporated by An act of Assembly in
1916. which was passed to give effect
10 the will Of Aaron Hall, then lately
deceased. BY the act Of incorporation
the school was placed under the exclu-
siye supervision and control Of the !
trustees, who were empowered to make
bylaws and regulations for it's govern
ment, subject only to the qualification
that they " shall not be contrary to the |
laws Of this State or of the United |
States" The court refused to award |
the writ, on the ground that the school,
being no part of the public free-school |
system of the State, the act requiring
any part of the public-school fund to
be appropriated to its support was un-
constitutional and void.
The court said "There is no doubt
as to the merits Of the school and the
benefits resulting from its operation to
lEt III ltS HtlSllbpiiVNA' ~ -
also true that many of those whose
children attend it are taxpayers. OF
whom school taxes are annually col
lected, which go to the support OF
other schools. But these considera-
tions can have no weight in de-
termining the legal question in
volved in the present case. That
must be determined with reference
to the provisions Of the Constitution
alone; and as in our judgment the act
in question is repugnant to the Consti-
tuition, the latter must prevail" The
subject has been recently considered by
this court, and with the same result, in
the case Of the Trustees Of the Normal
School rs. the auditors, s Virginia Law
journal. 73l. What is said in that case
is conclusive of this, and the rule must
therefore be discharged.
OTHER CASES.
Yates & Ayres RS. Robertson . Berke-
lev. from Circuit Court of nyille.
Affirmed, Judge Lacy deliveri"; opin-
ION.