Jones v. EtheridgeJones v. Etheridge
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Byrd
This is a wet and dry local option election contest between appellants, William H. Jones et al, the contestants, and appellees, Jack Ethe-ridge et al, the contestees. The legal issues involved are:
(1) Can a local option liquor election be held within three years of a prior such election;
(2) The sufficiency of a petition for contest which does not charge any specified vote was illegally cast but contains only generalities or conclusions to the effect that illegal votes were cast; and
(3) Can a petition for the contest of an election be amended, after the expiration of the time limitation set forth inArk. Stat. Ann. § 48-820 (Repl. 1964) for contesting an election, so as to set forth the names of the voters alleged to have voted illegally and to state that if the named votes were purged the election would be 1,008 for and 1,185. against the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The original petition alleged (1) that the election on November 8, 1966, was not valid, being barred by the three-year limitation period contained in
The county court overruled the contestees ’ demurrer and an appeal was taken to the circuit court. There the contestants filed .a motion for summary judgment under
From orders of the circuit court overruling contestants’ motion for summary judgment, sustaining a demurrer to the original petition, and striking contestants’ first and second amendments to the petition, contestants appeal, relying upon the points above stated.
POINT I
For .their contention that a local option election cannot be held within three years of a prior election, contestants point ont that .a local option election was held in November* 1964, where the election was in favor of the “drys” [see Titsworth v. Mayfield, 241 Ark. 641 409 S. W. 2d 500 (1966)]; and rely upon
We hold contestants’ position to be without merit. Grubbs v. Rowland, 226 Ark. 874, 296 S.W. 2d 201 (1956).
POINT II
We have repeatedly held that a petition for contest of an election does not state a cause of action where it does not charge that any specified vote was illegally cast, or does not contain sufficient information which would identify any such illegal voter, and contains only generalities or conclusions of law to the effect that illegal votes were cast. See
POINT III
We agree with the trial court that the amendments to the petition, which were filed after the ten-day period set forth in
It places no burden on contestants to require them to state the names of the voters who allegedly voted “wet” and illegally and to show that if alleged illegal votes were purged it would change the election results. Before one can in good faith contest an election, he must have knowledge of the persons who voted illegally, some knowledge of how the persons allegedly voted, and he must be able to show that if the votes were purged it would make a difference in the outcome of the election. Otherwise, an election contest would become a fishing expedition. An election by the people should not be so lightly impugned by those who only hope to find enough information to change the result of an election.
Contestants rely on Wassell v. Sprick, 208 Ark. 243, 185 S.W. 2d 939 (1949), to substantiate their contention that the supplying of the names amounted to nothing more than a permissible amendment to the petition. A close reading of Wassell v. Sprick shows that no objection was there made to the amendments and that they were not an issue before this court We know of no reason why the matter of amendments after the time could not be waived, and it is altogether possible that the contestee, Sprick, in that case preferred that the matter be tried on its merits rather than to stand on the technicalities of the period of limitations for filing a petition.
Finally, appellants in their reply brief argue that
Affirmed.