Case Name: Nicholas Burton et als. v. Charles Hicks et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-05
Citations: 27 La. 507
Docket Number: No. 5521
Parties: Nicholas Burton et als. v. Charles Hicks et als.
Judges: Wyly, J. I dissent in this case, and will file my reasons hereafter.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 507–519

Head Matter:
No. 5521.
Nicholas Burton et als. v. Charles Hicks et als.
A motion to dismiss an appeal, to be entertained, must be filed within tliree judicial days after tbe return day.
A defect in a certificate would be no cause to dismiss an appeal, tbe fault being attributable to tbe officer whose duty it is to make tbe certificate.
A deputy clerk is an officer known to tbe law and is authorized to sign certificates.
On tbe trial in tbe court# qua tbe defendants severally claimed in vain tbe right to challenge ten jurors under tbe act of 1855. If it was ever contemplated that several plaintiffs claiming different offices, could unite to bring one suit against several defendants, it is manifest from tbe unambiguous language of tbe law in regard to contested elections, that each defendant would have tbe right which was claimed and which was refused.
Taking as true what tbe defendants admitted, to avoid a continuance: “That tbe election returns of tbe parish were not made out and sworn to as tbe law requires, and that tbe ballots for ward one will not show tbe same result as to tbe returns, this would not be sufficient to defeat tbe parish election. It has been often decided that tbe failure to comply with tbe directory clauses of an election law will not annul an election. Courts can not affix to tbe omission a consequence which tbe Legislature has not affixed.
There is an essential difference between tbe act of voting and tbe police provisions to secure tbe evidence of tbe act. If tbe votes be deposited, tbe object of the election is attained, and its validity can not be affected by tbe non-observance oí tbe directory provisions.
If tbe sworn statements be true, that tbe ballots and returns, in tbe ballot boxes which were called for and could not be procured, have been tampered with so as to render them unreliable as evidence, tbe result of tbe election as ascertained and announced by tbe commissioners of election at each precinct, might have been proved by tbe next best evidence in existence.
Tbe irregularities shown by tbe evidence to have existed, resulted from a want of 'information on tbe part of tbe officers of tbe election, and said irregularities do not in any manner affect tbe result of tbe election in tbe parish.
Tbe facttbat tbe ballot box, at one precinct, could not be seen by those voters who stood near tbe window, can not be a oause to annul tbe election.
Tbe law does not authorize an election to be set aside, except for fraud, intimidation, violence or corruption, at or before,,tbe election, and then only when such fraud, violence, intimidation, etc., bad tbe effect to change tbe result of tbe election.
It is not shown that tbe defendants bad any connection with tbe irregularities committed, or with any acts of fraud, or violence, if any were perpetrated.
APPEAL from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, parish of Carroll. Hough, J. Jury trial.
O. H. Farrar and Julias Aroni, Montgomery & Felony, for plaintiffs and appellees. Leonard & Kennedy, JDeFrane & Austin, for defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Ludeling, C. J.
A motion to dismiss this appeal has been made, on tbe ground that the certificate to the transcript is signe t by the deputy clerk. The motion is refused for the following reasons:
First — Because the motion was not filed within three judicial days after the return day. 17 An. 21; 18 An. 191; 19 An. 276; 20 An. 30 ; 21 An. 329 ; 11 An. 545; 7 N. S. 271.
Second — Because a defect in a certificate would be no cause to dismiss an appeal, the fault being attributable to the officer, whose duty it is to make the certificate. Revised Statutes, section 36.
Third — Because a deputy clerk is an officer known to the law, and he is authorized to sign certificates. C. P. 782; 3 An. 247, Downs v. Tarkington ; 15 La. 33, Bank of Louisiana v. Watson.