State ex rel. Bartow v. Eastman

Nebraska Supreme Court

State ex rel. Bartow v. Eastman

65 N.W. 805, 46 Neb. 675, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 516

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 1896

DocketNo. 8114

StatusPublished

This text of 65 N.W. 805 (State ex rel. Bartow v. Eastman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Bartow v. Eastman, 65 N.W. 805, 46 Neb. 675, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 516 (Neb. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Norval, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus, commenced in this court, to compel the respondents, the board of canvassers of Dawés county, to reconvene and recanvass the votes [676]*676cast at' the ■ election held in said county on November 5; 1895, for the office of judge of the fifteenth judicial,dis4 trict. The relator, Alfred Bartow, and W. H. We.Aover and others were voted for at said election for said office. The returns have been canvassed by the respondents, and it is conceded by the relator that the abstract was correctly ■made exceptas to his own. vote in one of the two voting districts in Chadron precinct, in said county, from .which district the canvassers credited him with 262 votes. In this district a discrepancy appears on the face of the returns between ■ the certificate of votes cast for relator and the tally list. The certificate reads “two hundred and sixty-seven, 227” The tally list, in form “fHJfjjJ,” etc., which counted shows 262 votes for Bartow. It is argued that not only does the certificate govern, but that the number written out. in full should prevail over the figures. In State v. McFadden, 46 Neb., 668, it was held that the tally list was as much a part of the election returns as the certificate signed by the proper officers, and where a discrepancy exists between them, it is for the canvassing board to determine, after making comparisons with the list of persons purporting to have voted, which part of the returns correctly states the vote cast for a particular person and to count the vote accoz’dingly. That decision is decisive of the case at bar. There is a discrepancy between the written number in the certificate and the figures therein of 40 votes, and the respondents corrected the returns and computed the votes according to the tally list, as they were fully justified by the entire returns in doing. The writ is denied.

Writ denied.

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

Norval, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus, commenced in this court, to compel the respondents, the board of canvassers of Dawés county, to reconvene and recanvass the votes [676]*676cast at' the ■ election held in said county on November 5; 1895, for the office of judge of the fifteenth judicial,dis4 trict. The relator, Alfred Bartow, and W. H. We.Aover and others were voted for at said election for said office. The returns have been canvassed by the respondents, and it is conceded by the relator that the abstract was correctly ■made exceptas to his own. vote in one of the two voting districts in Chadron precinct, in said county, from .which district the canvassers credited him with 262 votes. In this district a discrepancy appears on the face of the returns between ■ the certificate of votes cast for relator and the tally list. The certificate reads “two hundred and sixty-seven, 227” The tally list, in form “fHJfjjJ,” etc., which counted shows 262 votes for Bartow. It is argued that not only does the certificate govern, but that the number written out. in full should prevail over the figures. In State v. McFadden, 46 Neb., 668, it was held that the tally list was as much a part of the election returns as the certificate signed by the proper officers, and where a discrepancy exists between them, it is for the canvassing board to determine, after making comparisons with the list of persons purporting to have voted, which part of the returns correctly states the vote cast for a particular person and to count the vote accoz’dingly. That decision is decisive of the case at bar. There is a discrepancy between the written number in the certificate and the figures therein of 40 votes, and the respondents corrected the returns and computed the votes according to the tally list, as they were fully justified by the entire returns in doing. The writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.W. 805, 46 Neb. 675, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bartow-v-eastman-neb-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack