The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-01-11

preceding that on whish isuoh election Is 10
q hsld. . suoh 'eheok lists' shall b csrs-
toatea which may some into the hands Of
anch rsgistry agents pursuant to this acs,
and aftss election they shall be transmitted
~ tho judges Of election 10 the cletk Of ths
board Of oounAy commissioners In conprc-
!: :.' p, s.s ! ), si i.. = u es. 's';s:'G ls, . .:s':;.:,
Il seems plain from the provision that
the legislature In requiring the YeRistration
Of oil Quslthsd slsct0rs. and that no votes
should Be received except on evidence OF
previous Ieeistiation shown b.. she check
dsrsd toths judges; and In further express
y providing that ths check lists and osrtiH-
Gates OF yegistration which come into thu
hands Of the Judges from she registry agent
shall be transmitted by ths judges Of
slsstion 20 ths c!sHk Of ths board Of county
commissioners, n connection with and a.
part Of the election returns, 40 provided by
Jaw" insendsd 10 place before the canvass-
Ing. board. In tho returns, the documentary
evidence. showing the registration OF the
electors Appearing from the poll book 10
nsvs bsen allowed 10 vote ~ aueh precinct.
.no ssssuss Of snis state provides that in
sIal provisions Or partioulass, such . pom
strustion Il. II possible. TO be adopted %
will give effect TO all" (Hsction ESQ. code
eivtl p~Eoosdurs.) Another rule laid down
By our statute 10 that Tin ths construction
Of 2 statute the intention Of the legislature.
the %intention Of the parties IL to b pursued
II possible" (6eotion 631. code civil pro-
II being clear that the legislature, By
providing that check lists and certificates
q Eesistration mentioned should consti-
tuts part Ct the election returns" in
shat the evidence Of registration on
which the votee are received, - eturnsd
BY the poll book. should be subject to x
animation BY the oanvassing board, a. part
OF the returns, the majority of this court
nelo mat such manifsss intention should
nave eject. This was an important point
70 sne case. The eanvassing board alleged
IN it, answer. - oanss for rejecting tho re-
turns from said precinct. In eject. that the
names OF sixteen persons appeared upon
she poll book a. having been allowed to
vote IT said precinct. who did not &ppeRr
10 have been iegistsrcd; and hat .'it Ap-
psarsd from said returns that said sixteen
persons were not entitled to vote At al a.
laid election" II this was true, more
than ons-third Of the forty-six votes re-
turned BY the poll book from said precinct
were fraudulent and did not Represent
votes cast by registered electors. az ap-
pesred from examination Of the rsgistra-
tion lists.
On demurrer to the answer il was oon-
tended that the canvassin9 board had no
right to look at all the evidence Of regis.
tEatiOn on which votes were received, az
part Of the returns, TO see whether the list
OF the electors recorded in the poll book -
having voted. wore registered. The de-
murrer was overruled by q concurrence of q
majority Of tho court. and the respondents
were thus allowed to substantiate by proof
the allegation Of their answer. ~ TO the
great discrepancy between the registration
lists and the vote returned by the poll
book. But on the hearing Of the CANVASS
ing board utterly failed to establish such
and certificates of registration surrendered
to the judRss of election. ii was found that
these documents showed the registration Of
. greater number of electors than was re-
turned in the poll book ~ having voted at
said election. There was no such thing as
tho registration list falling short of the
BY any mum Der whatever. The only sup
port offered for that allegation was the
pointing out of some difference in tho
spelling Of names. - written by the reg
istry agent. and by the clerks of election,
Q. . difference Ia Occurring BY way Of
name in case. and writing
IL at length in, the other, or the
dropping Of an initial, a. "Henry BrouRh"
in the registration list, and "Henry &.
BrouRh" ~ recorded by the clerks of elec-
ton in the poll book. However slight was
such difference, it was seized upon as
ground for alleging that the elsctor as to
whom il occurred. was not registered. The
purpose Of this coEcurring opinion was to
more fully treat the question Of practice ~
to tho issuance of the alternative writ of
.mandamus on the order Of one Justice Of
this court, and the question az to THAT nom
stitutes election returns under the rsvisions
Of the statute.