Davis v. Town of Cayce

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Davis v. Town of Cayce

164 S.E. 883, 166 S.C. 372, 1932 S.C. LEXIS 150

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 6, 1932

Docket13444

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 883 (Davis v. Town of Cayce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Town of Cayce, 164 S.E. 883, 166 S.C. 372, 1932 S.C. LEXIS 150 (S.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by-

Mr. Justice Stabeer.

The main questions presented by the appeal 'in «this case are fully covered and disposed of by Judge Johnson in his decree which will be reported. His conclusions and the reasoning upon which they rest are entirely satisfactory to this Court. We deem it necessary to> refer only to Exception 3, which assigns error to the Circuit Judge in admitting at the hearing on the appeal certain affidavits, on behalf of the contestees, to the effect that deponents had not heard of any citizen “who wanted to vote and failed to *385 register because the books were not open the full ninety-days,” and in refusing to give the contestants additional time in which to file counter-affidavits. Apart from affidavits, J udge Johnson’s finding to the effect that there was no showing that any qualified elector of Cayce failed to register for the reason that the books were not kept open 90 days was fully supported by the record on appeal before him. Consequently, the affidavits admitted could not have materially affected his decision, and their admission, if error, was harmless.

We may add here, as some confusion may arise from the use by the Circuit Judge in his decree of the expression, “for the full period of ninety days,” that his construction of the statute (Section 2288 of the Code of 1932) providing for registration of electors for a regular election in any incorporated city or town, “that the books of registration shall be opened ninety (90) days before the election and closed at least one week before the election,” is a reasonable and proper one, and his use of the expression above referred to must be taken in connection therewith.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Besase and Messrs. Justices Carter and Bonham and Mr. Acting Associate Justice W. C. Cothran concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by-

Mr. Justice Stabeer.

The main questions presented by the appeal 'in «this case are fully covered and disposed of by Judge Johnson in his decree which will be reported. His conclusions and the reasoning upon which they rest are entirely satisfactory to this Court. We deem it necessary to> refer only to Exception 3, which assigns error to the Circuit Judge in admitting at the hearing on the appeal certain affidavits, on behalf of the contestees, to the effect that deponents had not heard of any citizen “who wanted to vote and failed to *385 register because the books were not open the full ninety-days,” and in refusing to give the contestants additional time in which to file counter-affidavits. Apart from affidavits, J udge Johnson’s finding to the effect that there was no showing that any qualified elector of Cayce failed to register for the reason that the books were not kept open 90 days was fully supported by the record on appeal before him. Consequently, the affidavits admitted could not have materially affected his decision, and their admission, if error, was harmless.

We may add here, as some confusion may arise from the use by the Circuit Judge in his decree of the expression, “for the full period of ninety days,” that his construction of the statute (Section 2288 of the Code of 1932) providing for registration of electors for a regular election in any incorporated city or town, “that the books of registration shall be opened ninety (90) days before the election and closed at least one week before the election,” is a reasonable and proper one, and his use of the expression above referred to must be taken in connection therewith.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Besase and Messrs. Justices Carter and Bonham and Mr. Acting Associate Justice W. C. Cothran concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 883, 166 S.C. 372, 1932 S.C. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-town-of-cayce-sc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack