The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-07-01
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
ON An lFPLICITION FUR A WRIT
or MiNDAMUS
To Compel the Commissioner Of Election
for Al Co unity to Reconvene and Canvass
the Vote ola MagisteriaI District.
SUFFOLK. VA, June SO.-speciaL-on

SUFFOLK. VA, June ~.-special-On
last Thursday tho Hon. Robert II. Prentls,
judge Of the First Circuit OF this State,
rendered a decision OF the most vital I'M
pOrtance TO the people OF Virginia. IL
was an application fer writ OF manda-
mus 10 compel the commissioners or cleo
ton for county I'm his Honors Jurisdic-
ton 10 reconyene and canvass the vote
OF a ma gist eri3l district The matter was
heard and decided on n demurrer 70 the
petition presented, and the defendant
commissioners by that defense admitted
20 be true every allie gatlcl Of the petition.
The petition stated that the commits
slOners met on the day and at the place
required by law, and proceeded 10 open
the returns OF election for tho said magis-
tcrial district In which -here were three
voting precincts, that they utterly re-
jected and ignored the returns from one
precinct in plain violation OF law, that
tho returns from the rejected precinct
were I'm proper form, that there were no
nformalities rOr Irregularities on the
face OF the said returns. and that IN re-
Jecting the same the said commissioners
were usurpcrs OF authority
For their grounds OF demurrer the de
PENDANTS by their aDlo counsel insls'ed
among other things that
- That tho Board Of Election Coninis-
siOners having mct, fdving canNdss.d lhe
returns by casting up the vote at tWo
precincts and by rejecting the returns
from the third precinct as AFORESAID, anu
by ordering certificates of election, the
board WAS functus OilclO. and that thelr
duties then and there ceased ana deter
mined, that the commissioners them-
selves. did they 50 desire, could not Jaw
fully reasscmble and correct the wrong
done.
~ That the remedy Of the petitioners
was by contested election or by statutory
proceedings in the nature or quo WA
ranto, and that mandamus ala not ne,
The court ruled with the Defendants o''
both points.
Isl IT A BAD LAW2
The PETITIONERS insisted that the du. -
OF the DUard were purely hhlNs:Ilal'
that their duties did not cease ana ue-
termine ill they had legally discouraged
the sane. and that partla1 uisc"ai y
of their simple ministerial duties ano
[. cir act OF usUrpation IN rejecting Nhs
third precinct without wa rant OF 10 "
did not rel1ar the board runc-us oilcpl
Your correspondent Understood maj /.
Was admitted In the Argument tEal u
the board had not met az nil theh
maudamus would lie IL TINS BOARD h"s
never met at all after the first day OF
the succeeding July the Judge OF ths
County Court or the County IouI Wou..
have filled the vacancies by appoih,ihchi'
or the old officers elected oy the FSOpl'
4
but bv reason or the fact tnal mo com
missioners did meet and partially dis
charge their duties and by an &C. "
usurpatiOn their duties ceased. IL ina
is "a sound proposition OF law Is 1t not
Again. tho petitioners insisted that SC
far AS they knew the election held Wa'
perfectly fair. and that the Only WIons
| done was that OF the election cohlIh,S7'oi
ers two DAYS after the election III az
i nd
/ Clarlng as elected parties VINO hau ucvl
rejected bv the voters. and the only
/ wrong being done by the commissioner
no contested election could De hdu
| correct that wrong. y.r,,ri,
| Under section 100. code OF VII "'''
! $50, they insisted that ..,,..,.,, ..
| 40 That the matter Of jurisdiction
| limited TO the returns OF elecuplS'
/ meaning the returns made by the elec
! ton officers and not the canNassers'
20 That no contested electloh cou ,'
! he had AT the instance OF the three peu
| toners. alleged TO have been duly elected
10 office. and that an elecuon Co1'es
| must be had at the instance OF AT lea9
| fifteen qualified voters .,..,,
g. That by the terms OF the statuu
| said fifteen must IN order 10 give luIisIlC
! lion make complaint Of IAN undue elec
ton or false returns by the peu.ioI
! 90 was not IAN undue election but
| fair election. that the returns instead
| being false" were honest returns.
| 4 THAT IL be conceded that conteste'
election and mandamus were concutreil
! remedies that the remedy by mandarin
.,ndor the particular alleged circumstan
| ces was cheaper more eXpenditious an
| especially appropriate for the wron
! complained OF. ,,,,l,,r
Judge Prentis has not been on the oen r.c.
very long hut n very high order OF auii'
"a Judge Is accorded him.
The interest in this case is not poliiica
/ naraesariIv one II the officers "electe'
b, this board OF election commissioners
h. a supervisor. and in he county ailude
| 10. there are but two other members o
the Board Of Supervisors. II these elec
I ton commissioners can eject on sup
| ,isor they can elect three ana hdFih
| created three hy usurpation OF authorl'
| a an, using the language Of our Supiem
| Court of Appeals what VIII hihaSr t ~
| from ENTERING into contracts with 'hei
| o.--a creatures SO far as ! KNOW no
| ono of these parties over thought OF sue
a thing. Surprising they did not IN
principle IS the same.
! The writer has just seen in your pape
that his distinguished friend the non
| w II. Sands would In the near iuteI
| make application for client Tor a VIII
! ~ mandamus TO compel the board o
| commissioners of Henrico county 10 issu
! or rather to order It's clerk 10 issue I
! mat client a certificate OF election an
il had more 10 do with my wiring IN
! note. perhaps than airy other thihR. IN
! fIenrico hoard of ele ton commissioner
Is psrhaps functus oiicio. If the com
mlssioners did not declare that Mr. SANDS
| client was one of the person who ma
received the greatest number Of votes. 10
| the office OF justice how VIII the cIsr
| Of the County Court who Is eN-ohlSl
! cicrIs ~ tho board OF election commits
eioncrs issue the certificate? II Mt I'D
tor thinks this matter Of sufficient i'm
/ variance 20 invite "A discussion OF IN