Court Opinion

ID: 9832574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:00:46.955705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:48.317445
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
R. P. Blucher admitted that he marked for the illiterate voters in ward 3; and that the marking was done, at least a portion of the time, in a little room adjoining the large room in which the election was held. A number of voters claimed that they told Blucher to scratch the names of the opponents of Sutherland; but the tickets disclosed that the names of Sutherland and Blake, condidates for mayor, were erased, and the name of Pease left. At least one voter, Felix Torres, challenged the act of Blucher in erasing the name of Sutherland, and leaving that of Pease, at the time; and another ballot was given him. A number of the tickets were not only marked, but deposited, by Blucher, who was a partisan of Pease; and, while he denied it, the evidence was overwhelming that he electioneered for his candidate while the ballots were being prepared. Blucher was appointed a judge of the election by Pease; and he was charged by complaint or indictment with what he termed "doing crooked work in the election.” He admitted drinking at least three times while the election was going on. He could not specify any one of the illiterate voters who had told him to erase all names but that of Pease. He said: “I can’t right now point my finger to one of them who testified on that stand that they voted for Sutherland, who told me in the booth to scratch their ticket for Pease, and don’t think I can give the name of one of them.” Each of the witnesses swore positively to having told Blucher to fix his ticket for Sutherland; and he met the testimony by a general assertion that he marked the tickets as he was told. He was contradicted in some particular by almost every witness who testified about the manner of holding the election. H. B. O. Gussett, who was the county treasurer, testified that he heard a voter, whose number was 39, tell Blucher that he wanted to vote for Sutherland. That vote, however, went in for Pease, and was counted by the court for him; the name of the voter being Antonio Davila.
[7] The testimony as to ward 3 showed' that a partisan of Pease, who with the latter owned the electric light system of Corpus Christi, who was appointed a judge by Pease, who electioneered for Pease at the polls, who did the marking of the tickets for illiterate voters, a number of whom testified that they wanted to vote for one man, while their tickets were marked for another, who was under the influence of liquor, and yet *652was allowed to take Ignorant voters into a room and mark their ballots as be saw fit. After being marked, tbe voter was not even given tbe poor consolation of putting it in tbe box. With tbe evidence so overwhelming as to tbe mismarking of enough ballots to change tbe result of tbe election, of the threats beforehand to corrupt the election, taken in connection with the findings of tbe lower court, strongly indicating that be utterly ignored vital evidence, this court is unwilling to allow tbe judgment to stand. Tbe lower court specifically passed upon tbe legality of 22 ballots, but did not specifically pass upon tbe legality of any ballot which was attacked upon the ground that it was not marked as directed by the voter, though there were more than enough of such ballots cast to change tbe result of tbe election, if all were found to have been marked for Pease, contrary to instructions. Tbe court, after passing upon tbe 22 ballots, finds that in precinct No. 3 Sutherland received 177 legal votes of tbe qualified voters, and that Pease received 202 legal votes of tbe qualified voters. Judging by bis other findings, tbe inference is very strong that be did not consider be bad a right to find a ballot illegal, unless east by a person not a legal voter, or unless illegal by reason of something appearing from tbe ballot itself. His findings nowhere show that be actually passed on and accepted as legal all ballots claimed to have been wrongly marked; and bis general finding with respect to precinct No. 3 is so manifestly contrary to tbe evidence that it would be a miscarriage, of justice to let tbe judgment based thereon stand. It is not tbe mere absence of a finding, but an erroneous general finding. To sustain tbe judgment, tbe uncorroborated evidence of a witness vitally interested in seeing tbe result of tbe election in his ward sustained must be upheld; and, although an appellate court reluctantly Interferes with the verdict of a jury, or tbe judgment of a court on tbe facts, when no jury is bad, still, when a verdict or judgment seems to be clearly wrong, and when it appears that evidence on vital points has been completely ignored, it becomes a duty of tbe court to set aside the judgment. Railway v. Somers, 78 Tex. 439, 14 S. W. 779; Light v. Brown, 26 S. W. 886; League v. Trepagnier, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 523, 36 S. W. 772; Railway v. Wilson, 59 S. W. 589.
With tbe overwhelming testimony as to tbe manner in which tbe election in ward 3 was conducted, the number of voters testifying that their ballots had been prepared in a way to defeat their wishes being sufficient to change tbe result, we are unwilling to agree with the finding of tbe trial court as to the number of legal votes cast for ap-pellee, and believe that on grounds of public policy, and in the interest of a free and unhampered ballot, there should be a full consideration and clear finding as to tbe validity of every contested vote cast at the election under investigation.
Tbe motion for rehearing is overruled.