15 S.E. 938 | N.C. | 1892
(125) The defendant in his answer alleges, that while it is true eighty-one votes were cast for plaintiff and seventy-four for himself, but that of the eighty-one votes cast for relator twelve of the ballots had marked upon the back the letters "O. K." in pencil, which was (as defendant is advised and believes) a device under the law, and rendered said ballots illegal and void.
(126) It was admitted that if said mark in pencil was not a device, then the relator was elected. The court overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The Code, sec. 2687, prescribes that the ballots shall be "without device." It is contended that the inscription "O. K." upon the back of the twelve contested ballots is not a "device" within the meaning of this statute.
In DeLoach v. Rogers,
"A banner with the strange device — Excelsior."
The other point raised by the demurrer is, that this section (2687) does not apply to municipal elections. The Code, sec. 3789, provides that in such elections the inspectors "shall conduct the election in likemanner, and during the same hours of the day, as elections for members of the General Assembly. And at the close of the poll shall declare elected such persons as have the highest number of votes." This statute evidently intends that the same rules and regulations shall apply to the conduct of the poll-holders from the opening (128) of the polls down to and including the count by them of the vote and announcement of the result. In section 2689 it is provided that when the registrar and judges of elections (who are the inspectors, The Code, sec. 2678), open the boxes and count the ballots, any ticket which "shall have a device upon it . . . shall not be numbered, but shall be void." These twelve ballots which had this device upon them were void, and when the inspectors of the municipal election were proceeding with this important part of their duty in "conducting the election," they should, inlike manner with the inspectors in an election for members of the General Assembly, have refused to number these void ballots. The Code, secs. 2689, 3789. It is true that section 2689 says "when the election is finished," but the whole paragraph shows that this means simply that when the election is finished as to the reception of votes, the poll-holders shall proceed with the counting of the vote.
In this case the inspectors erroneously counted the contested ballots, but on the quo warranto their action was properly reversed by the court. The relator contends that the return of the canvassing board *82
was prima facie correct, and that the courts should now seat him and drive the defendant to his quo warranto. But the courts will not do a vain thing, merely to reverse the position of the parties by making the defendant plaintiff and the plaintiff defendant. A case in point is Ellison v.Raleigh,
AFFIRMED.
Cited: Mfg. Co. v. R. R.,
(129)