Case Name: McLAUGHLIN v. ZEIGLER
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1910-10-21
Citations: 87 S.C. 150
Docket Number: 7690
Parties: McLAUGHLIN v. ZEIGLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
7690
McLAUGHLIN v. ZEIGLER.
1. Elections — Contests.'—Notice of protest and contest of a primary election must be served on respondent.
2. Primary Elections. — Under the provisions of the act, 24 Stat., 949, requiring a candidate in a primary election to make a pledge that he would render under oath immediately after the election an itemized statement of all further moneys spent or provided by him in said election, a statement filed on the second day after the election that he had spent no further money, held sufficient.
Mr. Justice Woods dissents.
Petition in the original jurisdiction of this Court by T. J. McLaughlin for writ of certiorari against J. L. Zeigler and the State Executive Committee.
McLaughlin and Zeigler were both candidates for Supervisor in Calhoun county. McLaughlin contested the election of Zeigler on the ground that he had not filed in time after the election a sworfi statement of further moneys spent or provided in the election. The statement was sworn to and filed on September 1st at 2:55 P. M. after the election on August 30th. It was to the effect that no further moneys had been spent by him. The statute requires the following pledge:
“I hereby pledge that I will not give nor spend money, or use intoxicating liquors for the purpose of obtaining or influencing votes, and that I shall, at the conclusion of the campaign and before the primary elections, render to> the Clerk of Court or (Secretary of State as hereinbefore provided) under oath, an itemized statement of all money spent or provided by me during the campaign for campaign purposes up to that time, and I further pledge that I will, immediately after the primary election or elections that I am a candidate in, render ■ an itemized statement, under oath, showing all- further moneys spent or provided by me in said election.”
The County Executive Committee dismissed the contest, which action was affirmed on appeal by the State Executive Committee.
Messrs. R. H. Welch and 7. Í17. Walker for Petitioner.
Messrs. 7. A. Merritt and Glasé and Herbert contra.
October 21, 1910.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This was an application for a writ of certiorari addressed to the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
There are two reasons why the writ should be denied.
(1). Because there was no notice of pretest 1 served upon J. L. Zeigler the respondent, and
(2). Because there was a substantiál compliance 2 with the requirements of the Act.
Petition dismissed.