State ex rel. Bradford v. Harwood

36 Kan. 236
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 36 Kan. 236 (State ex rel. Bradford v. Harwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Bradford v. Harwood, 36 Kan. 236 (kan 1887).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

This is an action of mandamus to command the defendants to canvass the returns of the election held in Seward county on August 5, 1886, for the permanent location of the county seat, and in making such canvass to reject the votes cast in the “Owl building” in Fargo Springs, and in their place to accept the ballots cast at the poll known as the “wagon-box” in that village.

Seward county was organized June 17,1886, by the proclamation of the governor. "Walter I. Harwood, E. M. Campbell, and E. A. Watson were appointed the temporary commissioners, and J. M. Wilson, the county clerk. These officers qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties July 3,1886. Seward county contains sixteen congressional townships and four half congressional townships, being twenty-four miles east and west, and twenty-seven miles north and south. By.the proclamation of the governor, the town of Springfield was designated as the temporary county seat; The temporary board of county commissioners, at its meeting, July 3, 1886, divided the county into three municipal townships, as follows: Seward township, being twelve miles north and south, and twenty-four miles long east and west; Liberal township, being twelve miles wide east and west, and fifteen miles long north and south: Cimarron township, with the same extent of territory as Liberal township. The voting [239]*239precincts were established in these townships as follows: In Seward township, at Fargo Springs, in the southwest room of the building known as the “Owl building”; in Liberal township, at Rogers’s store; in Cimarron township, at a building known as “Tarbox’s ranch.” The town of Fargo Springs is nearly two and one-half miles south of Springfield. At the time of the election, although Springfield was the temporary county seat, the board of county commissioners, instead of making it a voting precinct, established the precinct of Seward township at Fargo Springs; and yet the bulk of population of Seward township lies nearer Springfield than Fargo Springs. In the division of the county into commismissioner districts, each of the three municipal townships was made a district; one of the townships, namely, Cimarron, had 39 votes only, while Liberal township had 132, and Seward township 404. On July 3, 1886, the board of county commissioners ordered an election to be held on August 5, 1886, for the various county and township officers in the county, and for the permanent location of the county seat. The following table shows the votes cast in the several precincts for the permanent location of the county seat:

An alleged canvass of the votes was had early Monday morning, August 9, 1886, with the following result:

Tt is claimed by the plaintiff that the result of the canvass should have been as follows:

[240]*240E. M. Campbell, one of the defendants, testified that the canvass of the votes for county officers was made at Springfield, on August 7th; that the canvass was not completed that day, because the commissioners thought it would be dangerous to do so on account of the excitement and threats of the people at Springfield; that he made a motion on August 7th, while the board was in session, to proceed to the canvassing of the votes for the county seat; that the votes were then in the hands of the board and looked at, but a motion was made to lay his motion upon the table, which was carried, and no announcement of the vote on county seat was then made; that the board then adjourned to August 9th, but no hour was fixed for the adjourned meeting, as the majority of the board did not want the Springfield people present when the canvass of the votes upon the county seat was made; that Walter I. Harr wood, J. M. Wilson and himself, met on the east part of the town site of Springfield on August 9th, at 3 o’clock in the morning, without the official poll-books, ballots or tally-sheets; that they canvassed by moonlight the votes cast upon the permanent location of the county seat of Seward county, and declared Fargo Springs had received 275 votes, and Springfield only 35; the votes cast in the wagon-box at Fargo Springs not being considered or counted. This canvass was subsequently entered upon the journal as the proceedings of the county commissioners, of the date of August 9th. No other canvass or declaration of the result was made, and E. A. Watson, one of the members of the board of county commissioners, was not notified of the time of the meeting of August 9th, and was not present at the meeting.

[241]*241eieeuonToanYass of returns, of resSitfvo*dn [240]*240The official meetings of the county commissioners, whether acting as a board of canvassers or for the transaction of the county business, should be public, and in the office provided therefor. It is also evident that the notice of the hour for convening the moonlight session of the board was intentionally and fraudulently withheld by the other members of the board from the third member. Therefore we think the secret canvass of the votes for the location of the county seat by two [241]*241commissioners aud the county clerk, in the absence of the official returns, and without the Presence or au7 notice to the other commissioner, by moonlight, upon the town site of Springfield, at the early hour of three o’clock A. M., was not only irregular, but wholly invalid. This pretended canvass cannot count for anything. (Comp. Laws of 1879, ch. 25, art. 15, § 211; P. & F. F. Rly. Co. v. Comm’rs of Anderson Co., 16 Kas. 302.)

Whether Fargo Springs or Springfield shall be determined to be the permanent location of the county seat of Seward county, wholly depends upon which of the returns from Seward township are to be counted. The contention is over the votes cast at Fargo Springs, and the question for us to determine is, which of the two polls is legal. It appears that there were cast at the poll known as the “Owl building,” a majority of one hundred and thirty-three for Fargo Springs, and at the poll known as the “ wagon-box,” a majority of two hundred and sixty-three for Springfield. If the “wagon-box” poll is rejected, Fargo Springs is the county seat; if the votes cast at the “wagon-box” be counted, then Springfield has a majority of all the votes cast, and must be declared the county seat.

The act relating to the organization of new counties provides :

“Voters at such elections may assemble at 9 o’clock a. m., in each election precinct; shall select from among themselves three judges and two clerks for the election, who, before they enter upon the discharge of their duties, shall take the oath required by law for judges or inspectors and clerks of election, any one of whom may administer such oath to the others. And the said election shall be governed by the laws regulating elections in force at the time.” (Comp. Laws of 1879, ch. 24, §117.)

It is claimed upon the part of the plaintiff, that a large number of persons in Fargo Springs took possession of the room in the Owl building, designated by the board as the voting-place in Seward township, the night before the election ; that they held the same until 8 o’clock the next morn[242]

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

Related

Kansas Electric Power Co. v. City of Eureka
45 P.2d 877 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1935)
Board of County Commissioners v. Comanche Township
32 P.2d 497 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1934)
Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. Champlain Lumber Co.
1905 OK 112 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Kan. 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bradford-v-harwood-kan-1887.