Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-01-20
svPREMe COURT DECISION.


Continued from End page.
were 80 far as the canvassing Board.
functio ofacio; and that they had no
further power over the matter; and
that the demand and affidavit OF Mr..
Wright did not revive any former or
confer any new control over the mat
ter; and (2) If the Boards control
over the matter did not cease on its
said adjournment on the said 18th Of
November. it did on the 18th of No
venher 1909, when Mr.. Soucerau de-
manded and received from the Clerk
of the Board the certificate CT his
election.
In support Of his two contentious.
counsel cites number Of author
tiles: but none OF them are applica-
BILE to the facts of this case. In none
Of the cases cited was there a clause
Of the statute saying that a recount
could be had, except the case cited
in 1T Mass. page $50. In that case
the justices of the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts, made re
Spouse" to the Governors inquiry that
he and his counsel as the Statutory
to recount the ballots Ofcertain towns
demand the ballots of those towns
should be recounted by them; but
that he and his said counsel ought
not on demand to recount the ballots
Of certain cities named, because the
statute made no provisions for recount
ing the ballots of those cities. AS to
those cities. the law having made no
provision for a recount. recount
could not be had, but as tc the towns
named a recount could be had. be-
cause the law did make a provision
for a recount as to them. The said
Justice ruled that said Governor and
his counsel we're functiO OfficiO as
to the ballots Of said cities: but not
as to the ballots of the said towns.
That case. when properly consider
ed is directly antagOnistic to the con-
tention of the counsel here.
To say that when the Board Of
County Commissioners met as Can
wasting Board on the 18th Of Novem-
Der, made its canvass, declared the re-
suit, ordered the certificate of cleo
ton to issue, and adjourned. at that
moment the right to make demands
for a recount was lost, is so to re-
strict the right to demand recount
Under the statute as to render it COM
paratively worthless Until the decla-
ration of the result a defeated can
dldate could not make demands be-
cause he could not until then know
that the declaration would be against
him. As in this case the declaration
and adjournment took place on the
same day; and it may have been the
one event following the other in rapit
succession. Such an Interpretation o.
the statute would practically give nc
time at all in which to make a de
mand for a recount.
The statute does not make any ex
press limitation of time in which +,
demand for recount may be made
1t might be, perhaps. beneficial i
the statutes we're made defnit II
this respect and in other respects
also, cleared of obscurity and uncer
tainty, but that is a matter for tribu
nails other than this Court.
The situation was not material,
changed by Mr.. Scuchera'S receipt o
his certificate Of election on the 13tl
Of November.
Without attempting to declare il
general terms when in such case
time to make demand for recoun
would cause probably an impossible
task, we simply say that in this case
we think the time had not ceased O
the 18th ofNovember when petitioner
demand for a recount was filed wit
the Board of County Commissioners.
Counsel makes another contentio
that the mandate of this Court shout
not issue because the petitioner ha
another remedy. to-wit, contest b.
fore the Legislature above mentione
under Section 1886 to 1910 OF the Con
piled laws Of Nevada, 1900.
True, the petitioner has probab
the right under said section to te
the question whether he or Mr.. So
cherau is entitled to seat in the sa
Legislature, but that is not the que
ton here. The question here is d
the petitioner on the showing mat
by him have the right to q recount
the ballots above mentioned. "
think he had that right, and we kno
get it than through the action
said Board in making the recount d
manded. It is therefore
Adiudged and ordered that the ms
date Of this Court issue to the r
spondnt's above named that tn
forthwith meet as Board TO Canvas
era to make the recount demanded
the petitioner in accordance with Il
viws herein expressed.
Fitzgerald, J.
We concur:
Belknap, c. J.
Talbot, J..
Filed January II, 1903,
w. G. Douglass.
Secretary of State and ex-on1e
Clerk of the Supreme Court.
BY George N. Noel, Deputy.
Filed for printer for publication
the 18th day of January 1903
w. G. Douglas
BY George N. Noel. Deputy.
WOOD FOR GALE.
The best Of dry yellow pine wo<
NO second growth, has never been I
med. will be delivered in any quar-
~, either cut or in cord wood lengt
r~A>rn u,ovnnflv dolivoeod