King v. State Ex Rel. Herbert

70 S.W. 1019, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 320, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 519
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 6, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 70 S.W. 1019 (King v. State Ex Rel. Herbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
King v. State Ex Rel. Herbert, 70 S.W. 1019, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 320, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 519 (Tex. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

GARRETT, Chief Justice.

This was a proceeding in the nature of a quo warranto commenced by the appellee against the appellant for the purpose of trying the right to the office of assessor and collector of taxes of the city of Beaumont. A jury was waived and the cause was submitted to the court with an agreement as to the issue to be tried entered of record. Upon a count the court rejected all the ballots cast in the second ward of the city, which changed the result and declared the relator entitled to the office, and rendered judgment in his favor thereof as well as for the sum of $1450, emoluments of the office received by the respondent.

The agreement upon which the cause was submitted was as follows:

“It is agreed by and between the parties plaintiff and defendant in the aforesaid cause, as follows, to wit: It is agreed that the ballot boxes shall be brought into court and opened in the presence of the presiding judge thereof, and the parties to this suit, and their respective attorneys; and that the ballots be taken from the boxes one at a time, and unless there be some apparent legal objection on the face of the ballots why each and all of the ballots should not be counted as shown to have been cast, then the ballot shall be counted as it appears to have been cast, and the sum total for the respective candidates shall *321 determine who was elected. And if a ballot is objected to because of apparent legal objection thereto, then the legality of such ballot or ballots shall be determined from the face of the ballot without any resort to extraneous evidence.”

The city of Beaumont is duly incorporated as a city having over 10,000 inhabitants by an act of the Twenty-sixth Legislature entitled “An act to incorporate the city of Beaumont, to grant it a special charter, and to fix its boundaries.” Approved May 12, 1899. Spec. Laws 26th Leg., p. 147. An election was held by virtue of the charter and ordinances of said city April 1, 1902, at which the relator and respondent were opposing candidates for the office of assessor and collector of taxes.

The fifth section of the charter of Beaumont, which is declared a public act, contains the following provision: “That the city council shall make all necessary regulations concerning elections, and provide for the examination and counting the returns of elections, and the issuance of proper certificates to the successful candidates.” The city council passed ordinances under which the election was held, the following provisions of which are pertinent:

“Chapter 5, article 18. Every ballot shall contain the names of the candidates whose nominations have been duly presented to the city secretary, and not withdrawn, and the names of the offices to be filled, and the question to be voted upon, if any. The names of the candidates for each office shall be arranged under the designation of the office in alphabetical order, according to surnames. There shall be left at the end of the list of the candidates for each particular office as many blank places as there are persons to be elected to such office in which the voter may insert the name of any person, not printed on the ballot, for whom he may desire to vote as a candidate for such office. The ballot shall be printed so as to give each voter a clear opportunity {to designate his choice of candidates, and his answers to the questions submitted as hereinafter provided. On the back and outside, when folded, shall be printed, stamped or written, “Official Ballot,” followed by the designation of the voting place for which the ballot is prepared, the date of the election, and the name, initials or private mark of the city secretary.” Then follows the form of a ticket, including -the outside indorsement.

“Article 19. All ballots when thus prepared shall remain in the custody of the city secretary until delivered by him to the presiding officer of the election, and he shall keep a record of the number of ballots prepared by him and furnished at each polling place.”

Article 20 provides for the number of ballots that shall be prepared. “Article 21. The city secretary shall deliver or cause to be delivered to each presiding officer on the morning of the election, and prior to the hour set for the opening of the polls, one hundred and fifty ballots for each fifty votes and fraction, cast at the next preceding election *322 for mayor in his ward; said ballots shall be previously wrapped and sealed by the city secretary, with a statement on the wrapper of the number of ballots therein, and of the voting place for which intended, and the presiding officer of election shall receipt to him for such package.”

“Article 25. Any person desiring to vote shall present himself at the polls and give his name and residence, giving street and number, if any, to one of the judges of election, who shall write his name down on a list for that purpose, and known as list number one, numbering the applicants seriatim, and announcing such name in a loud and distinct tone of voice. The voter shall then be subject to challenge in the manner and with the effect now provided by law. If allowed to vote his name shall be checked off by said judges of election, and his name shall be written down by another judge of election, on a list kept for that purpose and known as list number two, with the number corresponding to list number one.

“The voter shall thereupon be allowed to enter the space within the guard rail and he shall be handed one ballot and only one ballot, which shall be marked on the back with his number and the signature, initials or private mark of the officer delivering him the same. No more voters shall be admitted within the guard rail at any time than there are voting compartments. No communication shall be permitted between a voter, after he shall have secured his ballot, and any other person (except with an election officer) until after the voter shall have voted and retired from the reserved space.

“Article 26. On receipt of his ballot, the voter shall forthwith and without leaving the inclosed space retire to one of the voting compartments and prepare his ballot by running a pencil or ink line through the names of all candidates that he does not wish to vote for, and filling in the names of the candidates of his choice in blank spaces provided therefor, if necessary; and in the case of a question submitted to popular vote, by running a pencil or ink line through the answer he does not desire to give. Before leaving the voting shelf, the voter shall fold his ballot without displaying the marks he made thereon, and he shall keep the same so folded (the names of the candidates and the voter’s marks being on the inside and the official indorsements on the outside) until he has voted.

“Should the voter fail or refuse to so fold his ballot or fail to abstain from disclosing the contents of his ballot by sign, token or otherwise, before the same shall have been voted, his vote shall not be received or counted. The voter shall vote before leaving the inclosed space, and shall deliver his folded ballot to the officer in charge of the ballot box with the official indorsement uppermost, and the officer in charge shall not permit said vote to be cast if such folded ballot is not an official ballot, and does not bear the genuine indorsement of the city secretary and of the officer who delivered it to the voter, and such offi *323

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

Related

Graham v. Villareal
242 S.W.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Roberts v. Epperson, Co.
288 S.W. 595 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Mecaskey v. Ratliff
159 S.W. 115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Gallagher v. Church
142 S.W. 671 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 S.W. 1019, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 320, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-ex-rel-herbert-texapp-1902.