189 S.W.2d 682 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1945
Dismissing appeal.
Alton Mitchell petitioned the Edmonson Circuit Court to count the ballots cast at the recent primary election in the race for the Republican nomination for *478 membership in the House of Representatives. It had been found by the election commissioners that his opponent, L.A. Demunbrun had received four more votes than he. The court recounted the ballots cast in Edmonson County, but upon proof that the County Clerk of Butler County had not taken the ballot boxes into his custody after the original count, because he had been a candidate for office in the same election, but had permitted the janitor of the courthouse to take charge of them, the court was of opinion that as they had never been in the custody of the officer charged with the duty of preserving them, the integrity of the ballots was not established. The court adjudged that the petition for a recount should be dismissed, and Mitchell was granted an appeal.
The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the record was not filed within time to give this court jurisdiction. It is well settled that the prosecution of an appeal within the time prescribed by the statute is a pre-condition to jurisdiction. Whitt v. Reed,
The right to appeal from a judgment in a recount proceeding is conditioned upon the execution of a supersedeas bond and "filing the original papers and transscript of the orders in the Court of Appeals within ten days after the entering of the judgment." Kentucky Revised Statutes 122.060. In the early days this court established the rule that where the computation of time is to be made from an act done then the day upon which it is done must be included. The rule has been consistently followed in the construction and application of the provisions of the statutes and codes of practice, although it is otherwise as to provisions of the Constitution. Lewis v. Cozine,
In response to the motion to dismiss the appeal, the appellant has filed the affidavit of the Circuit Clerk that the judgment was presented to him by the attorneys in the case on August 29th and he entered it on the order book and took it to the Judge at his home in another county, on that date. The Judge instructed him to caption the judgment as of August 25th the date recited therein as having been rendered although it was actually entered on the 29th and signed by the Judge on that day. This is not supplementing the record, but is an attempt to supersede it. The filing of the affidavit with the response is but a collateral attack upon the record and an effort to impeach its verity by extraneous and parol evidence, presented for the first time in this court. Obviously, that cannot be recognized. Ewing v. Stanley,
We are of opinion, therefore, that the appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal should be, and it is sustained.
Appeal dismissed.