The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-08-24
AUGUST

it is accompanied by this tally sheet, which
is part of the return, we cannot consider
the tally sheet for any purpose, but are to
blindly follow this abstract, no matter what
or irregularity there may ap-
pear upon the abstract and tally sheet, or
between the two. / am of the opinion that
this tally sheet is a necessary part of the
return of the judges of elecuon under the
statute, and this opinion becomes conclu-
sive when we consider that the votes are
to be listed as they are counted for each
candidate A list means something more
than mere setting down of figures in
round numbers or in bulk. 1t means set
ting out, a listing, tallying. In other words,
the legislature meant that the judges should
count the votes and list the votes as
counted, either by numerals or by tallies
in some ineligible way, and that the list
should of itself contain fair statement of
the votes cast for each candidate. There is
no provision made in the statute for any
abstract; and when the judges Of election
undertook to certify to an abstract, which
merely gives the amount of votes in bulk
fol each candidate, they have III no sense
complied with the statute.
Now, then, under the rule that have an
nounced, itmust be apparent that the judges
of election, in footing up the votes received
their addition, by crediting TO him less
votes than he received to the number of six
votes, or they have made mistake in put
ting down upon the tally sheet numerals
aggregating six votes which he has not re
ceived And in either event, here is a dis
crepancy or irregularity which makes it i'm
possible for this board to reach just and
intelligent result and, in my opinion is one
in which the statute intended that the can
cin cho nrtf N q q
box, to ascertain what is the true result
between these two candidates. l feel
strengthened in these conclusions, first, be-
cause it is an intelligent and common sense
result. l feel more secure in this position
because of the fact that when we shall
have gone to the ballot box and opened it.
and counted the ballots, and ascertained the
results according as the electors have seer
proper to register it by their votes, tina,
then we reach the truth; and to this result
when we do reach the truth, all good citi
zens will bow with Difference and respect
The next question to which | shall di
rect my attention is that which arises upor
the returns which are placed before this
board from Poll No. l, precinct No. |, OF
Salt Lake county, between the candidates
| for county recorder. 1t appears from the
returns that two persons, one by the
name of Page and one by the name o.
IGuul6l, WeTt luz but
office of county recorder of Salt Lake
county, and the judges of election have re
| turned that given number of votes were
| cast for John H. Rumel, and given mum
Der for Henry Page. In others the return.
are for j. H. Rumel and II. Page. Yet il
others the returns are for John H. Rune
Jr. and Henry Page, or H. Page, and We
in others for J. H. Rumel Jr. and for Henry
Page, or h. Page.
The counsel representing Page object
and say that the votes returned by tn,
John H. Rnmel ought not and cannot b.
counted for j. H. Rumel, lr., or John H
Rumel, ir. They say in their argumen
that so far as the name Of j. II. or Johl
H. Rumel is concerned, that they make n
point upon the difference in the manner II
which it is spelled, but that when the worl
'.junior'' is attached to Rumel's name, |
indicates different person from that whel
it is not so attached to Rumel's name.
| Upon this question 1 have had no small
difficulty. But here, again, by resort t
the decided cases, and the reason of tn
law, ! believe l am able to work out a COZ
rect result, or at any rate one which is en-
tirely satisfactory to myself.
Bowler, in his Law Dictionary, vol.
says of this word: st has bee
held to be no part of mans nam
but an addition by use and convenient di:
| tinction between father and son of th
| the same name. Any matter that di.
tingulshes persons renders the addition c
junior aud senior unnecessary. But
| father and son have the same name, th
father shall be prima facie intended,
Junior is not added or some other matter {
distinction. For this the author cite
many authorities.
| tn 10 Tod 7 Sid ;,,<
case of Brown VS.. Benight, reported in
Blackboard, 80 S. c., % Am. Dec. 373, it
said: 'Thst if father and son are bot
called A. B., by naming a. B. the fatht
lprima facie shall be intended" And in til
case of Johnson vs.. Ellison, 16 Am. Dec. 16
it is said: Junior is no part of the nam
of man. 1t is neither the name of paptisI
nor the name of his family. 1t is an add
ton to distinguish between two person
bearing the same name. Surprising thel
are two persons named James Wyatt
usually distinguished by the addition
Junior or senior, the defendant has made
note to one of them, but to which the not
on its face, does not certainly and cor
clusively designate. To which Of the tN
the not is made and delivered is questic
of fact, which rests in averment Thu
this note was made to James Wyatt, jr.,
permissible averment. There is nothir
in the note to estop such an allegation"
In the case of Boyden vs.. Hastings,
Pick. 200, it is said: TIN an action of deb
brought by S. D., Jr., upon Judgment, tt
description set forth the record OF jud
: ment in favor of S. B.. but the record pr
duced set forth a Judgment recovered by
; B., Jr." Held that this was varianc
: The court, in its opinion, says: "It se,n
, very clear to US that there is no record
t the plaintiff hath set forth in his declar
ton. If we were TO say otherwise it wou
:. be determined that Samuel Boyden, j
7 was Samuel Boyden without any averme
/ to the fact. Thus. in the second Esp. Di
8 IA: ''If man pleads outlawry of Il
plaintiff by the name of j. 5. Knight, al
the record trolght in be of j. S. Gent
man, this is u failure of record.
: AS the pleadings now stand, v
D cannot presume that Samuel Boyden, j
I and Samuel Boydcn IRE the same perso
S lit is true that junior is no part of the a n
q but it is used to designate the person, al
8 it is used where the father and son la
the same name, and when it is so used U
court is bound TO presume that such is {
Q truth of the case
: In the case Of Colt vs. Starkweather,
0 Conn. 2S9, it is said: "Where a deed
s executed TO person named therein of
9 certain town, aud it is shown that there a
I two persons OF that name, father and Sc
s residing in such town, it is u case of late
ambiguity, and parol evidence is admissit
to show which Of these persons is intend
as the grantee. Therefore, VIE de
was executed to e w, Of P, ana it 8
peared that there were at that time t.
persons named E. W., father and son,
siding in p, the father being called e.
and the son E. W., jr., parol evidence W
e introduced to show that the negotiation W
v intended with the son, that the deed W
), intended for him, and that it was deliver
; to him; and that, these facts being Tn
proved, it was held that the title was tral
ferred by such deed to the son.
, These authorities (and many more mig
L be citedl establish that junior and SEM