The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-04-16

pressed at the polls. State. V. Barber, (wyo.) J,
81 Pac. Rep. %; Lucus v. hingsrud, 80 n. w.
426; state v. saxon, (Fia.). 80 Am. 81. Rep,
IS, 80.
In this connection section Is Of article TX of
the constitution Is pertinent; I'm all elections
person who shall receive the highest number of
legal votes shall be declared elected"
To hold such provisions OF a law mandatory IS
not within the rules as to mandatory and direc-
tory construction of statutes.
We said In First National bank v. NeiIl. 10
SAs 20 whether language should be construed
as mandatory or directory, the doctrine Is well
stated IN Wheeler v City Of Chicago. "a. M;
may Is construed to mean shall whenever the
rights of the public or third persons depend
" the s duty to Which it refers Ana So on the
other hand, the word shall may be held to be
merely directory when no advantage is lost,
sacrificed. either to the public or the individual,
by giving Ii that construction. But II any right
to anyone depends upon giving the word an Inn
the word was used In reference to such right or
| benefit. But where no right or benefit TO any
bs e me to 6e 81
| So in the case at bar. The moving party's right
| to his compensation given by statute for the
upon giving the: word shall an Imperative con-
struction; and as remerked In the Illinois case,
the presumption Is that the WORD was used In
reference to such right or benefit.' (See also
| Blake v. Portsmouth, etc.. X. X. Co., 80 n. II.
| 4s5; er pdrte Jordan, "a u. s. Isl; Sedgwick's
| statutory and Constitutional Law. si6-25.)"
The court then quotes from Endlich on I'm
| depreciation OF Statutes"
Under these views Of directory and manda-
| tory statutes we cannot hold that the matters
omitted from Hallahan's certificate were man
datory, when the question Is raised as II Is In
this case: The statute does not declare That
noncompliance with these matters shall nullify
| the election. Endlich, Sec. 436; boyd VS..
Mills Kas;( 81 Pac Rep. IS; Keller VS.: Ioulme'
S Feope vs. S %soe al and Sesct
| the legislature is not defeated by such nom
compliance. (EndIich, sec. ADJ. II the cleo
ton is to be nullihed, IL would. as observed In
| Endlich, Involve general Inconvenience and
| great public mischief and injustice TO innocent
persons. without promoting the real aim and
object of the legislature. (Endich. sec. 44s).
We cannot believe that such was the intention
Referring again to the case of Bank vs. NELL.
quoted above, we have to observe In the case az
| bar, that the right Of no one depends upon CIV
ing these provisions of the statute mandatory
constructon bnt on ga the other hsnd right
would be destroyed, that is. the right OF the per-
son having the highest number OF legal votes
| cast to be declared elected. Constitution,
Art. TX sec. 1877. But by giving these provis-
/ ions directory construction, this same right Is
preserved: Surely such construction should
such are our views as to this important mat
| ter. IL was claimed In the argument that our
ookeS IN the Of the Views
pressed. III it did, we are satisfied that IL
| looked in the right direction. We said In that
case: 1.-THE decision In this case Is placed solely
| upon the ground discussed herefnbefore, and
/ all other questions are reserved.
| SO. in this case at bar, we limit our remarks
| to the facts of the case, in this. nancy. That
| when such defects in a nominating cerilncate
| as existed in the one which we have considered.
are brought before court In proceeding surh such
| as the one at bar. and with the facts as they
| are found here. We are of opinion that the said
| described requirements OF the Australian ballot
/ law, as to certifying nominations, must De held
| to be directory only. Any other construction
| OF these provisions OF the Australian ballot law
| would convert a great reform measure into a
/ trap ana snare for the innocent and the hon
| est. and would subject the will OF the people In
| elections TO the accidents OF inadvertence, and
| the tricks of the disngenuous. While the stat
| ute would seek TO cast out one evil spirit IL
would take into the political house. thus swept
/ aud garnished. seven other more dangerous
spirits, and the last condition OF the state would
| be worse than the first. Gospel of Luke, chap.
| xi 2i-26).
| There need be no new trial in this case. The
| findings are all made. apd are not attacked.
| They are sufficient upon wlicl to enter judg-
| ment. (Woolman V. Garringer Mont. 4O5;
Collier V. Erwin, 2 Mont. ISL Barkley v. Tieleke.
| Mont. 1851
II Is ordered that the judgment of the district
4 court sbe reversed. and tnat the case be re-
| manded with instructions to dismiss the con-
| test. and adjudge that ID. +. Hallahan is the
| Reversed. WILLIAM III. levitt.
Associate Justice.
We concur: w. Y. PEMBERToN,
| Chief Justice.
.4. WILLIAM ii. HUNT.
| Associate Justice.