Eureka weekly sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1887-1902, 1899-09-30
M'MILLAN VS.. sADLER.
The Supreme Court Declares saa'er
Elected by sixty-three Plurality

The Supreme tourt Declares ss"'ef
EIeeted by sixty-tbree
The Carson News gives the following
synopsis Of the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Goyernorship contest. The
decision is by Chief Justice BOnn'heid
and concurred in by Judges BelknaP and
Massey. The decision starts out by com
plimenting the respective counsel IN the
case for their zeal aud energy in present.
ing their points Of law and the facts nee
esssrily brought in evidence.
The opinion is not very voluminous IN
the citation Of the authorities, for the
court declared at the outset that to give
in full their opinion upon all questions
raised, and to note the arguments oil
counsel aud authorities cited would fill a
volume Of Nevada reports.
The first question considered by the
court was the Respondents original OBJ
lection to the jurisdiction Of the court on
the ground that the information was not
filed in the name Of the Attorney Gene
raj of the State. The objection to the
jurisdiction was overruled, although the
court entertained some doubts as to its
propriety. ITO nave dismissed the &C
tion," the court says, "would have lett
the Relator without an adequate remedy,
although by his complaint he showed
that he had q right to said office"
The court in further comment, asserts
that the Legislature. has as yet, failed
to provide for such . contingency.
The validity CT the appointment OF
certain inspectors and clerks in Hum
boldt and Lander counties from the same
political party was next discussed. The
court held that the statute governing
such cases was only directory, q non
compliance with which was not sufficient
to throw out the vote Of the county or
precinct.
As regards the misconduct OF inspec-
tors OF election and bystsnders at Hum
boldt county and three precincts in Ian.
der county as alleged in Realtors COM
plant, the court held that there was no
allegation that the Respondent. Sadler,
participated in said acts, or that they
were done with his knowledge or consent,
such conduct would not invalidate the
votes cast therein.
The soldiers vote was then taken up.
The contention OF the counsel for Nc
MILAN was that under the enabling act
and ordinance the election held among
the members of Troop A, First Nevada
Cavalry, while on the high seas between
California and Hawaii, was q valid cleo
tion, and as the Relator received a ma
jority OF Ia votes that majority should
be duly credited to him and regularly
counted in his favor. The court held
that the enabling act and ordinance wac
not intended to apply to future elections
and as there was no provision in this
State governing such cases it would be
necessary to declare such elections void
and of no legal effect whatever.
As to the validity OF 447 votes cast for
Mcmillan at Reno, in Washoe county.
the court found it necessary to override
q portion of the case of Sweeney VS..
HUI. The court was Of the opinion that
the statute was plain regarding the cleo
tion OF councilmen by and from the votes
of the electors from their respective
wards, but commended that out of consid.
GRAFTON of the sacred rights Of suffrage
and in the interests of public policy, the
votes above referred to should be counted
for MCMILLAN and sustained the Realtors
demurrer.
The allegation in Respondents answer
setting out that the election in Storey
county was illegal on account of the
name of F. G. Lord appearing upon the
ballots after he had sent in his ~resigna-
tion. was demurred to by Realtors at
torneys. The court sustained the demur-
rer and held that the election was valid
on the ground that no proclamation or
writ of election as required by the stat
ute, was necessary in this particular
case as no session of the Legislature was
to take place between the date Of the
occurrence of said vacancy and the next
general election.
The registration in Reno was declared,
in the opinion of the court. to have been
legal. There is no provision in the stat
utes referring to the illness of the regis
tration officer whereby such an smer-
gency may be met. The court held that
the registration book was prima facie
evidence that the names that appeared
thereon were legally registered. AS the
inspectors of election were only ministe-
rial officers they had no authority to go
behind the record to judicially inquire
into the legality of such registration un-
less Q particular vote was challenged AZ