The San Francisco call., 1896-10-09
DEMOCRATS HELD
THEMSELVES OUT
The StaniSlaus Democratic
County Ticket Cannot
Be Filed.
Period Allotted Two Days Short
of the Time Required by
Law.
SUPREME COURT DECIDES.
To Grant the Writ of Mandate Asked
For Would Be to Disregard
the Law.
SUPREME COURT DECIDE

The Stanislaus County Democratic
ticket was not presented to County Clerk
Dingley of Stanislaus in time for filing.
This is the decision reached by the
Supreme Court yesterday. The Demo-
cratic nominees affected are the candidate
for Superior Judge and the nominees for
Board of Supervisors. The decision Will
make it necessary for these nominees to
get their names on the ticket by petition.
The application for writ of mandate to
compel County Clerk Dingley to fill the
belated list was argued Wed nesday after
noon. John E. Richards appeared in op.
position to the application. The text of
the decision was as follows:
The responde mt is the County Clerk of STAN
islaus County, and on the 5th day of October,
1896, the petitioner presented to him for filing
a certificate duly authenticated by the proper
officers of the nomination by the County Con-
vention OF the DEMOCRATIC party of that conn
ty, held September z, 1896, of certain candi-
dates for public Offices to be filed by the cleo
tors of that county at the coming general elec-
tion. The respondent refused to file the same,
alleging as reason therefor that the day was
a holiday, and also because the same was not
presented for filing within the time required
by law. The petitioner again presented the
with the request that ii be filed, but the re.
spondentagain refused to file the same for the
reason that it was not presented to him for
filing within the time required by law. The
present application is for a writ OF mandate
commanding the respondent to receive and
file said certificate.
Section 1892 of the Political Code, as amend
ed in 1895 (Statutes of 1895, p $685. provides:
Certificates of nomination required to be filed
with the County Clerks, or with the clerk or
secretary of the legislative body of any city or
town, shall be filed not more than fifty nor
less than thirty days before the day of elec-
ton, when the nomination is made by con-
yention.
1t is contended by the petitioners that
under this provision the 4th day OF October
was the last day on which the certificate
could be filed, but that as that day was Sun
day, by virtue OF sections IL and 13 Of the
Political Code he was entitled TO file it on the
next day that was not holiday, and as the
tn day of October was a legal holiday his
p presentation of the certificate to the respond
ent on the 9th was in time, and that the re-
spondent'should have filed it.
We are OF the opinion, however. that these
provisions OF the Political Code are inapplica-
BILE. Section IL provides that holiday shall
be excluded when IL is the last day OF time in
which any act provided by law is to be done:
and section 13 refers to an act which is ap-
pointed to be done upon q particular day. In
the present case, however, The statute does not
fix the day upon which nor the time within
which the certificate is to be filed, but declares
that it shall be filed not less than thirty days
before the day of election. To hold that 1T
ould be filed twenty weight days before the day
of election would be in manifest disregard OF
the provisions of the statute. The application
for writ is denied.