*1 114 Oklahoma unnecessary per leged person therein, insane relative which we deem son reside shall make cite here. whom he question his sani á demand au- the all the After careful a examination ty jury, a be submitted sides, reach both thorities cited provides 83ll0 that: jury ordinarily, although, that, a conclusion trial try granted issues will not be “Anyone custody person as an insane eorpus proceeding, the habeas any hospital, of county retreat home or is entitled justified in corpus, upon have been proper a writ a court would habeas petition in county trial petitioner’s to the granting by demand hospital, bepj} home or retreat have committed yet would jury, situated, him or some friend in his finding, jury’s bound Upon writ, return behalf. grant refusing no abuse of discretion inquired sanity fact of shall be into jury. Affirmed. trial such *” determined. MASON, X, NICHOLSON, HAR- C. that, petitioner And counsel for contend CLARK, LESTER, RISON. asmuch trial did RILEY, XT., concur. by jury originally when he was commit- ted, he now to to a have the § (See- (1) 564. C. X P. Note..— sanity jury ap- submitted on his p. L.O. plication corpus. for a writ of habeas regularity proceedings by petitioner hospital was committed we, challenged, therefore, indulge presumption proceedings the regular, were proceedings regular, and if the were al. v. OGLESBY. DOVE et petitioner deprived cannot be said that 16, March No. Filed liberty process without due of law. cited, No authorities are neither have we jurisdiction, support found from this petitioner’s however, contention; we are Primary Law 1. Elections Preferential precedent jurisdictions. not without in other Provisions. People In the case of ex rel. Thaw Grifen 1925, provides, 1, 29, L. Section hagen, Sheriff, al., et N. Y. effect, in order that in have proceedings practically were identical counted, he must case. was Thaw tried for murder candidates, where first and there second choice acquitted upon grounds that he was three, candi- four are as insane in the and committed hospital insane dates for the same choice, first, state of New York. He made numer applications ous in the corpus are more than for wTritsof .four habeas he shall so finally and federal courts. He own choice his ballot for his proceeding, instituted contending counted. being sanity of his fact, was entitled as matter of Guaranty. 2. Elections —Constitutional by jury eorpus pro trial in the habeas pro- ceedings. New court held “shall vides that precedent ample while there was military equal”; power, civil “no court, petition to which the for habeas cor prevent the free ex- shall ever interfere to pus directed, jury was to have a trial ercise of the fact, order to determine Applic- ó. same —constitutional Provision jury demand for a was addressed to Primary Elections. able to discretion sound petitioner but that plan holding jury entitled to such Under our scheme exercising right, trial as a matter of further provided 3 of findings proceedings in. mo- are made advisory jury merely in such case They a ment of made a the court and that the court would have general in the habeas to decide the issues final Or eorpus proceedings in accordance pri- findings contrary thereto, jury or ac mary elections as cording judgment as to the merits to his best provision^ art. 3. hence, findings. jury’s seems apply supported generously elections. cit authorities the same as *2 Oglesby Dove No equal. be and “The election shall
4. Primary Same —Preferential Law Uncon- inter- ever shall stitutional. prevent fere to obligations imposed The restrictions cases, shall, suffrage, electors of except a voter section 1 of L.S- treason, felony and breach for 1925, constitute a material interference during their peace, privileged arrest from that art. guaranty going to while attendance on elections 3, .supra, shall in- the same.” from terfere to chapter suffrage. follows: as 29 is said Section cf 5. Bight elections, Elections —Constitutional rage. voter primary each “That, at all Suff- or voting his choice shall to each nomination for choices of candidates While one either there be If as office follows: the mere to live or to any one nomination two for shall candidates yet it self-gov- does inhere in the candidate, office, for one said voter ernment,' and the free stamping or: mark- designating his choice is essential self-gov- maintenance opposite column choice an ‘X’ in the name first ernment. his choice: candidate candi Appeal 6. or four three Questions— if there either Error —Moot office, said (Decide any Jurisdiction) Retention of for dates voter nomination Con- designat candidates, stitutionality of Election shall vote for two Law. marking stamping ing his first choice Although passed the time have for opposite column “X” an the and choice in the first granting asked for choice his first name candidate of the case, yet, inasmuch constitutionality the stamp designating choice second his of a lic involved, general pub- statute is choice marking in the second ‘X’ an interested, retain candidate opposite the name cdumn jurisdiction pass upon and, choice; if there be of his second statute. any nomination for than four candidates Error Court, from County; District can office, three Carter for voter said Freeman, designating W. Judge. P. first and didates. choices either in case of out herein set as Injunction by against Oglesby 11. S. Mrs. designating his candidates, and three or four Clint tion others,' constituting Dove and marking the elec- ‘X’ stamping an 'County. Judgment board of opposite Carter name for column in the third choice plaintiff, bring choice. his third error. defendants candidate of Af- of the ¡be to shall vote nominated firmed. more than one candidate for as office, any voter said Short, Atty. Gen., Geo. F. Cobb, Randell many are choice as each candidates Gen., of Atty. Dudley, to said Atty. Asst. of nominated and F. M. to be candidates designates re County, fice. said Carter Unless for in error. nomination quired for candidates choices for Kirby Fitzpatrick, defendant for error. office, designates for for any same me vetes different candidates HARRISON, J. is to reverse nom required for number candidates court, enjoining an order of the district office, ballot said ination to said county election1 board of Carter from nomination, counted candidate chapter primary election under said office.” L.S. then, question, the fore- The is whether question presented The one in the case obligations going, imposes restric- statute is the statute. constitutionality of said with or a voteff which to which is made are suff- act, in in those section rage. it must that a have article 'in be 3 of the borne mind vote counted second, first and primary where there are choice candidates made a element as as or four candidates for the "'deals’exclusively The article .first, designate his primary suffrage, there, more than .third and four ato tions general for the same the free ex- hence or final ballot as nec- ercise own choice shall sacredly just- essary guarded primary provisions to be these held provisions in sec- and therefore the Consti- violative of 7, supra, apply tution, -which as follows: 114 Oklahoma essential to the maintenance the same extent elections. The ment. Constitution makes no distinction. regulation It is the manner true provides: 5 of said voting order to provid- regulation shall enact laws but the- ing for system. voting manner of distinct from the please. adoption to vote for of our In the *3 Constitution, people the state- the of “In all people the the vote guarnanteed to each free other the by ballot, exercise right suffrage agreed among: of ticket kind ballot to be used as regulations power make each other that no ever in- should may punish right. detect terfere with the of such fraud, of the bal- compelled When vote for some- is lot. have his he not want does order want, for the vote counted then does whom “Th;at suffrage- free exercise of his mo Shall with,
interfere to right materially and the ef- is interfered exercise free interfer- fect is the same whether provision of statute-or ence comes irom a Therefore cases cited bayonet. point from the error wherein primary laws have been involved, power says, sustaining preferential “No say, might interfere.” It under the be well pre- conditions sented, have connection, perceive dealt consti- different that we situations from the presented preferential. here, exact one tutional to a and are controlling. not law, provided constitution- not violate it does ques- rights, al vice in act but the We peculiar have our suffrage own system, compell- is the voter the fact that tion lies written into our .basic great law with care may ed some plain and in English, therefore the decisions have his vote counted want order jurisdictions of other based dissimilar one he does want. systems little, render us if benefit question which under is one other There plain meaning of our own nat- this case peculiar circumstances laws, deciding or in when our constitutional viz., itself, urally presents whether rights are language violated. The of our moot, but this has become here tion involved explains itself; plain, un- public one which essentially is involves ambiguous, and to have but one statute, and the validity of meaning. Likewise the statute in whether plain, has a meaning. clear It has the un- question which away ais being taken deniable effect saying to a voter any primary elec- likely arise at quite you unless vote for one or two who are tion. your choice, then the vote of the one who your adopt is other recognized choice shall not principles In Under words, you all, shall not at the United Supreme Court ed you may vote for one or two who be whol- moot. not beeome questions States, such do ly objectionable. 484; Harris, Mem also 189 U. v. See Giles (Tenn.) Rapid Co. Ry. Transit phis St. v. These restrictions cannot be harmonized R. Com’rs 635; v. rel. ex 179 S. W. State guaranties above constitutional (Fla.) 61 South. Tel. Con. Co. Southern & “No shall ever Y.) (N. 45 N. E. 119; re Fairchild In Klaus, 130 Mass ommonwealth of N. Y. We are not unmindful of the Rapid Transit Memphis Ry. v.Co. In St. suffrage has been held that the Supreme Tennessee Co., supra, Court right. an inherent This to a limited extent said: true. is not inherent juris- in the mere live or Court but it “The constitutional- self-government. will determine does Man diction and inhere although be de- can ity cause tihe -of a law government, any. live without grounds.” upon other cided in such state has no inherent of suff- v. Southern rage R. R. Com’rs rel. : State ex when he biit supra, Co., ment, Con. Tel. & then the said: Florida exercise free
Elling v. Bank Jefferson supra, the court said: nesses permanent other having- ular termine whether the statute ment in the November. This election pared flict desire to September, 1902, v. ject object a date ance to arising going peals of New ly of no because upon affect the thority tive in all isdiction In Commonwealth of Mass. v. In Giles v. “Perhaps In Re “Appellate We therefore entertain Green, presented the election has Even principal case, it is ground, controversy relates, regard questions upon statement as it importance, of the relief the determination of questions presented before 1903.” the bill. the decisions of- after decided *4 require respondent though litigation may Fairchild, this state to dismiss involved affecting impossible respects advantages it should be may prevent has congressional appellate proceedings because to court does constitutional, United States said: object involving courts U. Harris, supra, at an public.” that cause, election that. their determination become that officials the bill because public interests, supra, contends said: sought by of that been frequently election alleged not even the the bill was filed But we costs. the duties and moot in the be enabled give specific added can, most, subpoenaed future embarrass- registration held, district sufficient on this and also settle jurisdiction, questions proper- not, of circumstances division will is to obtain invalid.” there is a con- permitting the statute. involved, pass coming We at Court of are not gone by, so special as Mills pass whole plaintiff’s think inasmuch principal plaintiff. toe lose decision Court. by this import- Klaus, partic- retain- which taken, effec- upon term fore cast wit- pre jur- Ap an- de- au- ob (cid:127)the Constituticin. should provisions within the rather than ing. tent tion lature as given officein free possible, part of will of the graph eliminated, the and full der office and a second unconstitutional and void. With this the event he I, therefore, I No. 15728 preferential expressed. more candidates are ELLING am .authorized RILEIY, JJ., always provision toeing than four candidates are P ¡ insure nominations expressed toy force clearly | I® a second extent herein the.aiet, v. BANK desired to do so. ^ concur minority i-S in no presumed V is therefore the intention concur ^ wW S'. towas .£ (cid:127) (cid:127) <3>C w_, 71’ I to state and third in the inis way Filed March p the last have his vote counted. the act „ OF (cid:127) running that indicated. providing conflicts conflict with that JEFFERSON. majority keep Constitution. ^ thus, C 0*=' valid O legislative to voters, running that paragraph conflict choice when The remain- views for a provide within PN to -(cid:127) CO that intention majority P left MASON S-T-® opinion upheld, y far Legis- M n (cid:127) (cid:127) w para- here- bind- por- m ¡> w to^1 sn 5_. V Having — reached the conclusions heretofore Banking Accommodation 1. Banks: and indicated, Party Liability oí judgment the trial court Third Made to Notes Representations Cashier affirmed. Makers — Defense. except concur, BRANSON, theAll Justices represents to aof J., cashier bank participating. promissory persons executing accommodation my the act in .T. money loan will notes _ bank in so far unconstitutional notes payors of party same, pay to make not be called authority showing of when absence of a