St. Landry democrat., 1888-12-29
ELECTION TICKET PAPER.
An Important Decision Of the Court Of Ap-
peals, Fifth Circuit.
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION OF ACT
101 Of 1882, DEcREED TO BE DlREC-
TORY ONLY.


VS.. Charles RuusseI, appellee. No. II,
court Of appeals, fifth circuit, parish OF
ST. John, the following is the full text
of Il decision rendered 10y The court OF
appeals for the fifth circuit, Hon. Hen
ry d. Smith being the organ of the
Court and Hon. r. T. Beauregard con-
curing
The plaintiff in this suit, Louis Do
cay, asserts III his petition that at tho
ei-ctin1 held Oh the 17th day OF April,
| 1883, lie was Candidate for Justice uf
me Peace Of the fourth ward of the par
| lsh OF ST. john the Baptist, and he claims
that all tue legal ballots cast at that
election fer the aforesaid office We're for
! him. tie further aSera that the deftn-
dant, Charles R,ussel, was also IL c;.udl-
| date for the same office, aud that the
| ballots cast for the said defendant
koussei should have been rejected and
uot calu;ed upon the ground and for
| the reason that said ballots We're not
printed ON paper purchased from tho
Secretary OF Stale. He further alleged
| That notwithstanding the aful esa,d tact
| tho commissioners vt election ami the
returning officer OF the parish declared
| the defendant elected TO tho office III
question:.
He prays that there he Judgment de-
Glazing bin to have been duty elected
! aud ASKS that all The pretended ballots
| cast for the defendant, Rousscl, be de-
| creed nuii and of no effect.
Tho defendant, before answering to
the merits, fled the following excep-
tluDs:
FlIst-That tho plaintiff spetition was
J. 81.
act No. "a III the acts ut 1877.
S.c"ni-That the Petition disclosed
no cause of action.
Thnd-Ihat the SUIT. having for it's
! object the removal from Office of con-
sIitutlunal officer, should have been
| brought Ivy the State.
These exceptions were all ovcrruled
ana after Issue joined there was iudg-
ment 10 the merits for tho defendant
and the plaintiff has appealed.
We THINK his horror OF tbs court qua
| did not eir III everything, etc, defend
ants exceptions. The only enc of the
exceptions deserving seiious consitiera-
ton Is that wherein it set up the pre-
scriptlnn of thirty days under section |
of act a at the acts 1877. However, the
plain language of til- Statute is that
the contestant shall within thirty DAYS
tlt XIV ~kANhSi utC III
the district court petition setting fortt,
tho facts III wticn he intends % con-
test, etc. Under the act above referred
tn the filing of the petition was in time,
and this court cannot depart from the
unamblguous letter of the law under
consideration with Il view of making it
conform and subject to the technical
rules which govern statues of presci ip.
ton.
Upon the merits of the controversy
the IL but one question to be treated,
ta-SIt:
Is the provision of action of act 101
of the acts OF 1883, relative the el,arac
ter Of paper on which election tickets
are IN bt printed, mandatory or directo
ry in its nature
Under the we'll settled rules of inter-
probation the section in question is
purely directory, because, first. no pen
atty is fixed for Its vlUiatlon secondly,
it is not of tile essence OF the thing
whereof it forms part and il but one
Ill The means 10 4 desired END /; aud,
thirdly, beespse the spirit OF the cleo
ton laws III tins ard the other states OF
this union is that the failure to observe
the luere formula or machinery through,
which the will ut the voter ia expressed
can never fatally violate or nuiilfy an
election.
In keeping with this idea our own
Legislature has said that the failure to
open the polls at the hour required by
law, or the failure TO furnisi, the ballot
boz, tally sheets or blanks required by
law, shall not vitiate the election, un-
Iess it be shown IN contest that /. sniff
cient number of electors We're deprived
of their votes to have changed the re-
suit. Act. 50 Of 1872 and So Of 1877. How
much less important il the paper on
which an election ticket ia printed than
the ballet COX OF the tally list or even
| the hour Of opening the voting pre-
ciDcts. Ii is not even pretended in thu.
case Of bar that tie contestant, Decay,
received more retes than bis opponent,
o: that he has been deprived 1t votes
east, or that would have been cast for
him, by fraud OF other iaipnner prac-
tees; but merely and solely that 7;sirx
ballots of Que of the candidates were
printed on regulation paper and those
OF the other We're nst,
Again. it is by no means clear that
sectiop of act 10l OF the acts of 1882
applies I'D election tickets used in voting
for ward Ulcers, such az Justices of the
peace aud constahlrs. Section 3 of &C,
81 ut 1877 provides that tiiejr ward off
GERS shall be voted for on separate tick
cts cast in separate box, while section
| 4 of act 10l uf 1889 says that ''all the
| nance ut persons voted for shall be
printed on one ticket Or ballot of white
paper of uniform siZs nr qualify, e., be
furnished, by the secretary of state,1
etc. Now the question arises how are
all the names OF persons voted for to be
printed GA ane ticket when ward officers
are tu be voted for GE separate tickets
cast in separate box.
For these reasons, az well as for the
very excellent reasons assigned 10y his
honor ct tle district court. the judy
ment appealed from is affirmed, at APP
prllant's costs.
The plaintiff was represented by
Messrs. Charles A. Baquio and Gervais
Leche, the defendant by Messrs. T. j.
Srmmes and L4gendre. The suit was
brought TO test the question involved.
A Safe Investment
Isone which is guaranteed to bring you