*1 oil excuse that such wages process plaintiff’s the conventional route. taken home is reversed with directions to discharge The judgment the garnishee. participating. Justice Burke
No. 12,213. Secretary et al. Miller, Armstrong, v. State. September 29, 1928. . Decided *2 Philip plain for Mr. A. Mr. Woods, Hornbein, James tiffs error. George Paul H. Mr. Donald W. Mr. Lee, Shaw, for defendants error.
C. McCreery, Banc. En
Mr. Chief Justice Denison of delivered the court. persons protested petition a to initiate a re-
Certain peal of section 13 of article XII of the Colorado Con- stitution known Civil Amendment. The Service district, protest, of state sustained the secretary’s court, upon review, affirmed the action, where- petitioners brought the case here for review § under C. L. 31. necessary petition
The number of names to a valid petition surplus 23,085. The 31,280 bears names, 8,195. The which statute fixes the essentials of such a §L. reads C. as follows: “All initiative and petitions signed qualified referendum shall be electors proper person only, in their own to which shall be at- person, including tached the residence address such any, signing street and and the date 418 petition To shall be attached an affi-
same. each such qualified signature davit of each some elector that there- signature person purports on is the whose name it knowledge to be and that to the best of the and belief persons signing petition the affiant each of the said was ’’ signing qualified at the time elector. following concede that rejected: should be
(a) day no or no month is Where date signing, ........................... 458 (b) Names with addresses,............ double 27 (c) city given No town or in address,......... 230 (d) Six sections of which contain for-
geries, ............................... 600 (e) One section from Alamosa with various
defects, .............................. (f) knowing Sections verified one not facts, *3 ............... n . (g) Unintelligible addresses, 56 (h) by Section circulated a minor,............ 100 (i) Business, instead of residence, addresses,.. 27
1785 2. We are of the that dates in which year the was omitted are insufficient because it permit by using separated would fraud sheets petitions purposes in later for other and thus purpose frustrate the of the dates. The number of such names is conceded 2,615 to be................ many
3. There are names where the address though by judicial lacks the street either by signatures notice or other other evidence signers presumably we know that had resi- majority dences with street numbers. A rejected. court prot- think these should be estants claim these number 3,055, concede 2,808. Neither nor the any specific finding court point, made on this but secretary upon proof by protestante in
419 objection support names this to certain proof, himself sat- declared of further their offer 3,055 claim.................... to the whole isfied as signatures appear in same more 4. Two or rejected............. 553 handwriting; must both be thirty-eight are sections shown 5. About secretary of satisfaction evidence tampered signing after so state to have must be names thereon three thousand that over rejected 3,000 .....................................
11,008 duplication 2 items 3.... Less between 10,648 20,632, 31,280, substract we shall we necessary This re- less than 2,453 which number. quires judgment. the affirmance nearly peti hundred sections of the
There are one required in false, tion affidavit to each which is more one each section two or that in at least instance that such one hand. It is conceded names written rejected, protestants claim that the names must be destroys falsity respect to such of the affidavit names to all such section and so its force as other destroys integrity separa section as would the (Elkins tion of the sheets and alteration of section v. 655) 135, such sec 80 Colo. Pac. Milliken, rejected entirely. reject tions This would *4 some nine thousand and would alone vitiate the names point we are not unanimous on the so we but rest our decision on the matters itemized above. shows record, above,
The several hundred person signed for cases where one has another. The stat- felony. ute makes this a The circulator in these cases genuineness signatures. has to the made oath knowledge perjury. Nearly this was half of done sections have been circulated with disregard guilty reckless of the law. The prosecuted punished.
The it' district court held that was a court review majority not for trial de A novo. this court right § think that was L. under C. specific findings.
The of state no It made great would been a aid district court and to specified categories this court he had the names or rejected. hope names which he found to be We any future will case he do so. judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burke was able to attend the oral ar- his vote not necessary and since to gument a decision and would not affect the result he does participate herein. Justice Adams and Mr. Justice dissent. Walker
Mr. Justice Adams dissenting. Irrespective of 1,785 names which ad- illegal, hypertechnical disregarding mit are I think that, objections, enough there still left are to entitle proposed place amendment to on the ballot. difficulty majority opinion agreeing have less with applica- some its statements of their law, than in easy tion. Problems of addition and subtraction enough, quite to what add or subtract is different. gross disregard protestants’ part There was a on requirement protest of section L. must C. “specifically grounds protest set forth of such protested.” the names Thousands of names have out thrown where this was not done. As a I think result, any lawyer successfully challenge judge, I can man, beginning pro- connected with this case to end, repeatedly duce such names. We have said that we do *5 conjecture. the not cases on It would make for decide justice administration of to adhere to the rule. respectfully I dissent. reasons,
For the above Justice Walker dissenting. holding I to of the court. to assent am able Except say agree them, to I need to that cannot by prot- objections discuss the to the raised but which the basis the court’s estante, are not made grounds specifically in the decision. opinion, relied Of paragraphs and those in numbered two my open judgment, it doubt, serious in to are, three para- ground in set forth to me that seems clear graph necessary to sus- it is untenable; since five result assignment order to reach the latter tain my briefly views by indicate court, I shall at arrived concerning it. af- says thousand the three that assignment to because be stricken
fected tampering. part attacked number was of this
A small appear to have made under been erasures because however— The bulk or dates. addresses part it to result reached essential and that claimed, as it is the ad- because, attacked court —was by persons both were written dates or dresses signers, signing. It after the is ad- than the other persons signers other than that under the law mitted may particulars. addition, If the write these subse- by person signing, quent thus authorized make to the signer, instructions of the in accordance it, and any- changing and without intent, fraudulent and without tampering, thing has constitutes a it is written, way species house and no kin” “of different tampering invalidating we are accustomed to denounce as more technical other and documents than initiative an petition. annexing the contention be that sign- done date and addresses must be at time ing, the contention is sustained Elkms v. Milliken, 80 Colo. 249 Pao. but this not be unreason- *6 ably interpreted signature to mean that invalid, is if writing signature the completion of another intervenes before the signer’s pres-
of the if all done in first, be may so and that he know ence, what address and date certifying requirement he is to. But however the stated, the evidence does show violation of it in this case. relied to show such violation circumstances groups
are that blocks or of the word or the “Denver,” or were date, both, shown to have been written in one according handwriting and of a hand, pert, ex- sitting. testimony given at one This was with ref- only many of erence to a few sections of the many (included computa- and as others in the court’s tion) it ap- was claimed the intrinsic evidence in the .that pearance expert document itself is sufficient. The opinion, witness also his ventured with reference to one only, writing groups that the section the blocks or was signing. gave done after But he as his reason for this any conclusion the that observation he could not think of why Upon meagre reason it would be done before. this appears evidence the of state to have found writing that the in of the addresses and dates in these presence signers, cases was done out of the of the and long signatures so after the were affixed as not to consti- compliance finding tute a ap- with the law. This is now proved by although, court, this it seems to it me, hardly guess. unsupported more than a It is evidence regarded which would be as sufficient to maintain an issue adopt preference in a equal probabilities civil case. can not it, in to even that, addresses and dates sitting, might in fact all at one written anticipation obtaining signers done in only, presence group signers, or in the Denver proba- other circumstances under consonant with the law, bilities are reinforced the recital or certificate of in favor presumption themselves, by signers by document, validity the regularity on acts of criminal commission against presumption circulators, signers. part reversed. should be I think the judgment No. 11,960.
Katz v. Cohen. Eebearing 1928. October denied October Decided