Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-08-04

On the issues made by the answer t
the alternative writ a trial was had be
fore the court, without a jury, on tn
18th day of November, 1890. During tn
progress of tie trial defendant in error
relator in the court below, offered a
evidence, in support of the writ, anon
other things, the certificate of election
from precinct No. 8, hereinbefore re
ferred to; to which offer respondents oh
jected because such certificate was no
the original and because it was no
authenticated as required by section
ll96 and 1897 of the Compiled Laws
The objection was not sustained, th
instrument was admitted, and the court
upon hearing the proofs, adjudged tha
the writ be made peremptory. The cast
is here by writ of error, upon a BIZ
of exceptions, for the purpose OF having
reviewed the ruling of the court admitting
the certificate in evidence.
| The bill OF exceptions does not purpor
to contain all the evidence received OIL
the trial. On the contrary it expressly
appears that it contains only call the evi
dence offered by the plaintiff which waf
objected to by the defendant" and the
certificate attached to the bin shows that
it is only "a true, full and perfect tran
script of such part of the record =
as said respondents deem necessary for a
review OF the Judgment.
We will consider the question present
ed under two aspects:
|. Did the district court err in admit
ting as evidence the certificate of elec-
ton?
2. Is it comp' tent for this court, in
view of the character of the record, to
modify or revise the alleged erroneous
judgment?
1t is admitted that the original certif.
cate, or the one ofsuch originals as should
accompany the poll books, was not before
the canvassers for the reason that it had
been purloined. Hence the writ directed
the board to proceed with the canvass of
the votes from that precinct upon GER
tificate made in pursuance OF the provls-
ions OF section 1876, Compiled Laws OF
1884. That section reads
The said judges shall close the election
at 6 O'Clock in the afternoon and immedi-
ately thereafter shall open the ballot
boxes and publicly count the votes for
each candidate. certifying the poll books
as provided by law; provided, that said
judges OF election shall order that copy
OF the certificate be entered in the poll
books, then to be signed by them and
clerks, and transmitted to the Justice of
the peace of their precinct; provided, fur
ther, that the said judges OF election be
required and obliged to give certified
copies to the parties interested that may
solicit the same, provided, that these no.
tices shall not exceed four in number"
The only grounds upon which the can
vassing board OBJ bjected to the reception of
;he certificate were, first, that it was not
,he original; second, that it was not au-
as required by law.
The certificate purported upon its face
% be the original, duplicate thereof, or
'uch copy as Is intended by the first
'roviso of the foregoing section of the
statute.
We must take notice, from an inspec-
ion of the transcript, that the certificate
If Clerk Garcia that the instrument Of
cred was copy of an original in his Of |
icial custody was not appended thereto
vhen it was offered. The certificate was
lot made until December 5, and the trial
vas had November 16, 1890.
The certificate of election then did not,
when offered, appear to be copy re.
lulring auIuenSication. The mere charge
If such defect in the language used by
he objectors neither made it SO nor was
any evidence that it was such. The
of the signatures thereto was
lot challenged and the court may have
Ound upon examination thereof, or by
irect proof, that it was one of the instru-
nents authorized and made competent
vidence by sections 1196 and 1167 of the
Compiled Laws of the territory.
Hard cases make hard law" and this
5 peculiarly true in view of the many
oubts, difficulties, errors or frauds Incl
ent to popular elections. 1t appears
pon the face of the record that the rela-
or claimed that $50 votes had been cast
t the election in precinct No. s, of which
lumber he had received 1O4 as candi-
ate for representative in the general as
embly. Are the men who cast these
otes to be disfranchised on account of {
be mistakes of public officers, or the
raud OF unknown parties who neglected
, furnish, concealed or destroyed the
rimary evidence of the will of the cleo |
)rs as expressed by their ballots? If l
egligence, dishonesty or fraud may thus s
ullify the right of suffrage, guaranteed
very citizen, IN one precinct of the coun-
7, may not similar agencies be employed
18th impunity to deprive every elector of
le territory of the inestimable right of
free ballot and honest count?" 1t was
vidently to meet such cases and prevent.
8 far as practicable, the possibility of
lch wrongs that the legislature wisely ',
nacted the various laws providing suit !
BILE remedies in case of official negligence :
nd the substitution and use CT copies in
ase Of the loss or destruction OF the orig- :
ais.
Hence, it not appearing that any proper
bjection was raised to the instrument Of
'red, we can not say from an inspection . .
the bill OF exceptions that any error
as committed in receiving it in evld-
nee.
Had we not reached the foregoing con-
usion, the judgment would have to be !
firmed for other reasons. 1t is not pre- .. q
'nded, as has been already shown, that
le record contains all the evidence. i.
In the investigation of case of this y
laracter it is necessary that the bill of
to enttle plaintiff it error to i i
'versal, should show, at least, all the I
,idence upon which the alleged erron- !
Jas judgment is founded. In the alb
'nce Of such showing every presumption '
ill be INDUCED in favor of the validity of !
10 judgment. a
Wallace VS.. Boston, 10 Mo-, 66O; Ham, !,
;on VS.. Moore, W. and S., pa go; I
ennock vs.. Decalogue, 2 Pet, Gu. S. Il
!. 3