Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/Sone v. Williams

Sone v. Williams

32 S.W. 1016, 130 Mo. 530, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 414
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedNovember 19, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 32 S.W. 1016 (Sone v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sone v. Williams, 32 S.W. 1016, 130 Mo. 530, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 414 (Mo. 1895).

Opinion

GAntt, P. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Cole county in a contested election for the office of sheriff of said county.

At the general election held on November 6, 1894, Charles F. Williams and Samuel H. Sone were candidates for the office of sheriff. On the face of the returns as cast up and certified by the judges of election in the several precincts Charles F. Williams, the contestee, received a majority of thirteen votes.

On November 14, 1894, contestant Samuel Sone served the contestee with a notice of contest setting forth in substance that the election judges in the various precincts refused to count ballots on which Sone was voted for for the alleged reason that said ballots were not properly prepared and marked according to the laws of this state when in truth and fact said ballots were valid and legal ballots; second, that said [537]*537judges had counted for contestee Williams ballots not legally and properly prepared; third, that the election judges had committed errors and made mistakes in counting the ballots whereby the result was changed in favor of contestee Williams. This notice was served in time toSmake the cause triable at the December term, 1894, of the Cole county circuit court.

Thereupon contestee Williams served contestant with a counter notice of contest making charges of errors and mistakes similar to those made by contestant and in addition charged that contestant had received the ballots of a number of illegal voters whose names were set out in the notice. No effort was made to sustain this last charge and it is not before us for review.

Within twenty days after the election, contestant filed a supplemental notice, which was quashed on motion of contestee. A motion was also lodged against the original notice of contest which was overruled.

At the December term, on the sixth day of December, 1894, the court made an order directing the county clerk to open, count, and compare the ballots in the presence of the parties and their attorneys. The contestant was' represented by F. M. Brown and Dante Barton, members of the Cole county bar, and the contestee by Messrs. Waldecker and Chamberlin, of the Cole county bar, and Major Moore, of the Moniteau county bar. After due notice to all parties the clerk, in the presence of both parties and the above mentioned attorneys, made the recount and subsequently filed the same in court as directed.

A correct tabulated statement of the official count and recount as contained in the clerk’s return, is as follows:

[538]*538 ObNyV4L35

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

Related

Porter v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance
187 So. 2d 254 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Schwend v. City of Birmingham
111 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
People v. Rosen
27 N.Y. Crim. 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
DeLong v. Brown
113 Iowa 370 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Howser v. Pepper
79 N.W. 1018 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1899)
Hope v. Flentge
47 L.R.A. 806 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Nash v. Craig
35 S.W. 1001 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 S.W. 1016, 130 Mo. 530, 1895 Mo. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sone-v-williams-mo-1895.