issued bore,hhenumber 1. If other oop ies were dsfeotivsbsoausethey bore the nmibrs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8, 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, aad 17, rpspaotively,suohdefeot was apparentapo~ their faoe. The Comissioners'Courtwith full kaowledgaof rrergthingshoa by the face of the petitionorderedthe sleotioa. . .'*
"Hersthe Comisrfoner~'Court, in.theeacoroire.of its du$r, fouad t;kt the,pe- titian oompliedwith the statutoryrequirsnen%a.The petitioner.who rignedBhr various oopiea of tihepetitionwere qualiPird~o&en. &nd entitledto have the eleotioooalled. If the petitio*mm dofeotive,~it me defeotiveaetoform only, and suoh defeot ma ahown upon its faoa. The Cmmir@.onere'Court had juriqdiotic+!to detenniw whether.,suo~petitionme a proper one to imposeupon it the duty of oallingthe eleotion. . . . Had the Coannl~~ionerr Courtifound the petitionwa8 dsfeotivein that it was not seri8llynumbered, and had the petitionersappliedto the di8trlubcourt for a mandamusto oompel the issuaoe of an order for an eleotion,a differentquestionwould be pesee@m& In axy oam we hold that the defect in the petitica,if it -8 a defsot,did not render the petitiona nullity,,,andthat t@ oourt had jurisdiohioatomonaider raid petition,and it was i%s duty to do 80, and maid oourthadtb oapaoityfo de- termineerroneouslyas ~1% a8 oorrsotlywhether the petitionwan defeutiveas to form. Since the Commissiomrs~Court had jurisdiotioato order the eleotion, and did order the electionafter a.ffinmtivelyfindingthat the petifim om- formedto the statutoryrequiremmtr aa to fonn,ws Aelieve that. if the petitionwas defeotiveaa to form (thatia, an to beiog oorreot?y mauimmd serially),that it RS suffioientto invoke said Commi8sio~0n Court*6juris- dictionia the pmmises. . . .
*. . . Failureto numberthe peditionaerially,if it m6 not mumborod#aria+ ly, was a mere i~egu$+x+zy which ooourredprior to the eleotionupd aould ham had no offooton its outcome. . . . The court had jurisdiotionindependentof the petiticmto order thq eleotioaand with full knmledge of dsfeotrrapparent upon the faoe.thereof,therefore,ita order for the eleotioaoonstituteda waiver of apparentdefeatsin theptition. . . . Hon. MorrisPT. Bassell,page 4 (O-6999)
I . . . We make this distinotionbetweenthe requirementsrelativeto the man- datory provisionthat the p?&itiomshall be seriallynIznbered and the mando- tory provisionthat the order shall state the issue or issues to be voted oa in the eleotion. The petitionis addfersedto the Conmriseioners' Court, sad if with full knowledgeit see8 fit to order an eleotioPr,whioh it had ths jurirdiotion to order at all avaats,no one else oan quertionthe rruffioiencry of the p&it1081to tupportan orderwhloh the oourb oould have made in the abrenoeof a petitioa. fi otherwordr, o Conmctarioaerr* Coti oaatreat cusy pe%itioaa8 ruffioietihavingfull kaowlrdgrof all faotr."
ti theare of PowellV. Pond, 160 S.Vf.(ad) 357, the oourt held that wheathe ConrmirrlcPlerr* Court fouad the petitionfor an eleotionto be suffl- &lentand signedby ten (10) per osnt of the qualifiedvoter8 bred ontie vote for Governorat the la& preoediaggeneraleleotion,the petitian oonfem juritdiotioaupomtha oourtto order the eleotiomaad it ir maadatorgthat the Collrmirsionerr* Courk order *he eleotionupon the petition.
The ptitioa mentionedia Art1010 666, 800. 32, ir notia prerequirite for an order by the mirnionerr ' Couh for an eleotior,beoause '*heoourtmay order aa elaotioa011its 0111motion- If the oourt orduw u aleotionupon a p&ition, it lppaan from the opinion in the oam of Eutronv. <h quo*& abovr,the