The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-09-04
PRECINCT CASE FROM
BURKE COUNTY
DECIDED
The Supreme Court Ahirrns
District Court on Voting
Precinct Question.
PRECINCTS
ED BY WARD GOOD
Action Taken When Burke
Was Part of Ward Stands
Until Changed.
DESIGNAT-
ED BY WARD GOOD

~ NSShoAOA Ill Tx ouEhe county
election precinct case in which 1t
holds that the voting precincts in
Burke county which were created and
designated by the board Of county
commissioners Of Ward county when
Burke county was a part of that
commissioners Of Burke county.
The action was brought in the form
of a mandamus In the name Of the
state Of North Dakota at the relation
of F. N. johnson and L. L. Griffth
against the members of the
ing board Of Burke county. The case
was heard by Judge c. F. Templeton
sitting in the Burke county district
court and the decision was against
the REALTORS. who then appealed.
The supreme our afirms the lower
court. The syllabus follows:
Mandamus is not a writ Of right
WILL not be granted to compel
the performance of an act when no
beneficial result would be attained by
Its performance.
discretionary writ. and when applica-
ton ts made to the trial court to is
sue mandamus that court may take
testimony to aid 1t in determining
how its discretion should be exer-
cised.
1t is not an abuse Of discretion to
deny a writ Of mandamus when 1t is
shown that its issuance would avail
nothing to the REALTORS.
The county commissioners Of Ward
county, when what is nov Burke
county was a part thereof, establish
ed the voting precincts and designat-
ed the polling places in certain
townships now in Burke county. On
the organization Of Burke county the
commissioners thereof failed to re-
polling places. Held. that the pre-
cincts and polling places established
by the commissioners of Ward coun.
ty remain such until the commissions
ers of Burke county act thereon.
In accordance with Elvfck v.
Groves, II N. d. SCI, it is held that
where a voting place is duly estab-
lished by the county commissioners,
an election held at another place q
considerable distance therefrom, in
the absence Of special reasons is un-
authorized. and the returns thereof
should not be .canvassed.
In each of the precincts involved
in this proceeding the commission
ers Of Ward county in 1908 establish.
ed the voting places at "the usual
the next election after such estab-
iishment. the voting was done al
places near the center of the town
ships or precincts. A motion Of re-
lators and q demurrer flied to the re.
turn Of the respondents both admit
that the election Of 1910 was not held
at the place designated. The evidence
shows that it was held at places sew
eral miles distant, on the extreme
boundaries Of the precincts; and it is
held that in the absence of any con-
Met in the evidence, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in declin-
ing to issue its writ Of mandamus to
direct the canvassing board to can
vass the votes alleged to have been
cast at such illegal polling places and
which such board had refused to in
clude in its anvas of votes cast at
the 1910 election.
Members Of a canvassing board are
presumed to know the locality of the
designated voting places and to take
notice OF. the geography Of the town
ships in their Jurisdiction, and when
returns clearly indicate. that an cleo
ton was held at a point distant from
the designated place such board is
justified in declining to canvass such
returns. in the absence Of special
considerations. The trial court found.
on inquiring into the facts and on
the demurrer and motion above re-
ferred to. in substance that on a con-
test OF the election there would be
no justification for changing the GER
tihcate issued by the c%anvassing
board. and declined to issue its writ
of mandate. Held. that this was not
an abuse of its discretionary power.
1t may be conceded that a minority
rule invoked by REALTORS differs from
the rule established in this court, but
even II such minority rule were to be
followed 1t would avail REALTORS moth
ing, as under 1t the burden was on
them to show that the change was
made in good faith without fraud and
with no intent to injure the cause
of respondents, and that In fact no
one was deprived of his vote by rea-
son of the unauthorized change in
the voting places. Realtors showed
none Of those things.