Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-12
ELECTION CASE MUST BE TRIED.
The Supreme Court so DEGREES In the
Prince Edward Contest.


The opinion rendered in the Supreme
Cour, of Appeals yesterday morning IN the
case OF Richardson and others against
Farrar, Judge temporarily of the County
Court OF Prince Edward. YRS an important
document The paper was prepared oy judge
FauntlerOy. The case was all Application Tor "a
writ Of peremptOTy mandamus IRON the Count!
Court o. Prince Edward asking that the su-
preme Court set aside and annul the order OF
that tribunal Of August Z, 1871, disinissing inc
ompaint OF sundry citizens OF raise retunu'
gross frauds, aud other Irregularities aui ne
,alities in the general election Tor county Officers
OF Nay 2S. 1891, and require the Judge TO pro
coed and bear and determine tue contest inaue
by mp,ainants as % the election OF urea
surer. sheriff. ami commissioner OF the revenue.
The petitioners, who are twenty-One white
citizens and voters oil Prince Edward county,
comprising members OF both political parties,
make lengthy charges az 70 the manner III Wnlch
the election was conducted. and elleye that VIII
liam IA. Ewing, for treasurer; l.. L. clark, tor
Commissioner Of the revenue, and Thomas IL.
DickersOn for sheriff, were frudulentiy credited
with n large number OF votes more than had
been cast for them and which had been ftauii-
lently transferred from those for whom they
we're cast, add that certificates OF election were
given 20 the candidates who received the smaller
number Of votes, whereby, as they ailege' the
result OF the contest vas reversed.
COUNTER COMPLAINT ENTERED.
Tho paper recites that within the time pre-
soribed by law the said Ewing, Clark, snd Dick
ersOn appeared aud without demurrer, plea IN
abatement, or other dilstory proceedings, hled
their counter complaints, setting forth the Hot
OF voters alleged 10 have voted for their oppo-
nents which they would contest.
The issue having thus been joined, dispositions
were taken and the case brought up IN the Pri1ce
EDWARD COunty Court in July, 1891. several
motions were made 10 dieihiss or quash the CONF
plant. The contestants moved the court 10 re-
fuse leave 20 file these motions, as being insunl-
Gent IN law and contrary 10 the statute. Az Tue
August term the order was entered sustaining
the motion OF the contestees.
Judge farrar, in his answer, admitted that
he had not heard the case on It's merits or the
proofs and without going INTO any investigation
whatever into the com plant dismissed IL De-
cause Of the misJoinder OF the defendants.
THE COURTS DECISION.
The Supreme court decided that the refusal
OF the court t. hear and determine the con-
test and dismissing the complaint on motion was
not error for which writ OF error would lie. and
that the misconception OF the comPlainsnts In
Court In awarding the writ cannot effect the
original Jurisdiction Of this court TO direct pc.
remptory mandamus 10 tho County Court OF
Prince Edward 10 compel II TO reinstate, hear,
and determine the complaint and the contest,
which peremptory mandamus was awarded.
The opinion continues: IAN tho requirements
OF the statute as 10 the complaint, IL Is con-
coded, have been complied with. The statute
does not limit the contest TO one defendant. nor
require Ii 20 embrace more than one, and II au-
thorizes and requires no pleading except the
complaint and counter complaint aud
the motion TO quash aud dismiss the complaint
for misjoinder OF defendants was not a legal and
proper plea or defence. where mere dlatory
dafences would lie, which our statute provides
shall be made by plea in abatement only. and
tnrt under oath AMI before any plea IN bar IS
made
Judge Lacy disssnted In a very able opinion,
and Judge Hinton also dissented on the ground
that the case was Ia the Circuit Court OF Prince
E1ward now and n mandamus 10 tue county
Judge would not reach II.
Counsel In the case we're Messrs. w. w. Henry
and J. q. Fitzgerald, for the contestees, and
Messrs. H. Il. Hubbard and Waller X. Staples Tor
the petitioners.
otner supreme Court Cases.
Cropp against Crop. From the Circuit Court
o, Fauquier county. Affirmed, Judge Lewis de-
liyeriLg opinion.
Richmond and Danville Railroad Company
AGAINST Monett. From Circuit Court OF orange
county. Reversed. Judge Lacy delivering opin-
iOr.
Harris, administrator, against Norfolk and
Western Railroad Company. From Circuit
Court of Bedford county. Affirmed, Judge Rich
ardson delivering opinion.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
against Copenhayen's administratrix. Appeal
ALLOW ed and supersedeas awarded TO decree of
the Circuit Court of Wythe county.
Meade against Norfolk and Western Railroad
Company. Appeal allowed and stpersedeas
awarded 10 decree OF Circuit Cour. OF Russell
county.
Robinson and others against Robinson and
others. Further argded by ii. u. cannon, ESD,
for appellant, and submitted.
Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance Company
against Vaughan. Argued by Judge W. W.
Crump for plaintiff In error.