The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-06-21

Davis vs. Henderson and others,
l27 Ky. y. 13.
The first question presented for
our consideration Is:
HAS A PERSON WHO HAS SIGN
ED n petition for a local option eiec-
ton the right TO withdraw his name
before the petition Is acted upon?
In the State OF Ohio. where the pow.
er of ordering an election is vested in
the City Councils of certain munich
palities. the Supreme Court in Dutton
vs. Town OF Hanover. AZ Ohio, St, 21f
laid down the following rule: While
such petition Is under consideration
and before action thereon by the coun-
III signers thereof may withdraw
their names from such petition and II
thereby the number OF names Is reduc-
ID below the requisite number, It is the
duty of the council to refuse to order
such election The right OF voters TO
withdraw their names from a petition
tor the granting OF license was sus-
tained by the Court In Simpson vs.
Commonwealth. 81 s. w. 3O7 Law re-
port, wherein the court said: 1T is
true that ten OF this number had pre-
Viousiy petitioned the court to grant
the license. but they had the right TO
change their minds and oppose the
granting OF the license, IL they saw
nt to do so, and the County Judge
was In error when he refused to con.
slider their names upon the petition.
he had no right to deny them the
privilege Of coming into court and
stating to him that although they had
favored the granting OF the license,
they had upon reconsideration, been
opposed 90 It. The precise question
was before this court I'm O'Neal vs
Newman. 1875 Ky, 571. 30 Ky law re-
port. sci. and In discussing II the
court said:
The County Judge could not order
an election on "a petition signed by less
than the statutory number of voters.
and although a voter has signed the
petition. still he might. at any time
before tho petition was acted upon.
withdraw his namo and. II this left
less than the statutory number. no
election could be ordered. The stat
ute Is not satisfied IL a petition signed
by sufficient number OF voters is fled
with the judge. r. ere must be a suf
hent number OF voters asking the
calling OF the election. No one Is re-
sponsiole for the cost OF the proceed
Ing but the petitioners. No one Is
required To make deposit but the
petitioners III litigation ensues no
one may be responsible but the De-
titloners. IL would therefore be q
very harsh rule To say that a person
who has signed such Il petition cannot
withdraw from IL before 1t IL accepted
RemOnstrances against the granting
OF licenses are frequently withdrawn
In county courts. although the writ
Ing has been filed with the county
court and there Is no sound reason
why the same rule should not apply
To petition for an election under
the local option act before 1t as acted
upon by the county court. Counsel
Tor appellees insist that the facts OF
the foregoing ease and OF the case at
bar are SO different that the rule above
announced should not apply. The
only difference between the two cases
Is this: In the former all the ne
titloners withdrew, while in the lat
ter only "a small number withdrew.
but the counsel for appcIleea con-
tend with great earnestness that the
proper rule is the one laid down by
the supreme Court Of Arkansas in