Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-03-26
Special to the Register.

Special to the Register.
CHARLESTON, w. Va, March Is
J.. W. Dunlevy, who was elected a
member of the County Court of Mar
shall at the November election, 1898,
and who has been kept out of Office
by a stubborn County Court, which
seemed to have used every means in
their power to defeat the will of the
people as expressed at the polls, has
at last been given his Office by the Su-
preme Court, which rendered it's de-
cision in the case yesterday, and which
was published in Sundays Register.
The induction into Office of MI. Dun
levy will make the County Court of
Marshall Democratic, n of the sitting
members being a Democrat.
At the November eection, 1898, J. w.
Dunlevy, Democrat, and S. R. Davis,
Republican, were opposing candidates
for the Office of County Commissioner
of Marshall county. The precinct re-
turns showed that Dunlevy received
2,066 votes and Davis 1925 votes, thus
electing Dunlevy by a majority over
Davis of 141 votes. Davis demanded
OF the Board of Canvassers a recount,
which they proceeded to make, and by
rejecting numerous votes, they reduced
Dunlevy's vote to 1901, and Davis vote
to 1904, thus giving Davis a majority
of three. The canvassers failed to
make a report of each vote rejected as
required by the statute and refused to
sign bills of exceptions to their rulings
until compelled to do so by mandamus.
Dunlevy then applied to the Circuit
Court for a writ of %certiorari, which
was awarded, and the Court on hear
ing upon the writ found that the
Board of Canvassers had illegally re-
fused to count a large number of bal
lots cast for Dunlevy, more than suffi-
cient to change the result of the cleo
ton, reversed the finding of the Board
and remanded the case to them with
instructions to convene and include in
their count the illegally rejected bal
lots and declare the result of the cleo
ton accordingly. From this order the
Board and S. R. Davis obtained from a
judge of the Supreme Court a writ of
error. The original ballots which were
before the Circuit Court, and acted up
on by that Court, the plaintiffs in err
o did not see fit to bring before the
Supreme Court, but they produced
along with the record the faces of such
ballots for the inspection of the Court.
The Supreme Court holds that the bal
lots are the primary record Of evidence
of every election from which. the pre-
cinct returns are made up, and when,
on a recount, any such ballots are re-
jected, 1t is the duty of the Board of
Canvassers to make a record of such
reflections and clearly identifying such
rejected ballots for future lnVeStlga-
ton.
The gist of the opinion of the Court
is to the effect that under the present
election law of this State the duties of
the Board of Canvassers in recounting
the ballots are purely ministerial and
not judicial, and it is it's legal duty
to count all ballots or parts of ballots
where the intention of the voter ap-
pears from the face of the ballots,
though not marked or erased in the
plain manner directed by the statute,
and to reject all ballots and parts of
ballots where such intention does not
appear from the face of the ballots. 1t
is the Ministerial duty to make a care
full record of every ballot rejected by 1T,
with the reasons therefor, and the iden-
LITIGATION of such ballot as part OF such
record.