129 Mo. App. 242 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1908
At the general election held on November 6, 1906, the question of restraining certain stock from running at large was submitted to the qualified voters of Union, Washington, Lebanon, Auglaize and Smith townships, in the county of Laclede, Missouri. The returns of the election were duly canvassed and the proposition to restrain sheep, swine and goats from running at large in said toAvnships was declared
“Number of votes cast at the general election November 6, 1906, for county and State officers in the various townships are as follows, to-wit:
Votes cast in Union township.......... 451
Votes cast in Washington township .... 290
Votes cast in Lebanon township........908
Votes cast in Auglaize township.......233
Votes cast in Smith township .........148
Total...........................2030
Second:
Number of votes cast at the general election November 6, 1906, on restraining sheep, swine and goats from running at large:
*245 No. for No. against or Yes. or No.
Votes cast in Union township .......237........121
Votes cast in Washington township .. 73........150
Votes cast in Lebanon township .....463........116
Votes cast in Auglaize township .....103........108
Votes cast in Smith township .......27........104
903 599.”
Relator moved for judgment on the return which motion the court sustained and rendered judgment in his favor.
“The provisions of this article are hereby suspended in the several counties in this State, until a majority of the legal voters of any county voting at any general or special election called for that purpose, shall decide to enforce the same in such county: Provided, that only a majority of the legal voters voting on said question shall be necessary to decide its adoption or rejection.”
Section 4788, of the article, provides as follows:
“Whenever any five or more townships in one body in any county in the State of Missouri, by a petition of one hundred householders, not less than ten of whom shall be from any one of said townships, petition the county court for the privilege to vote on the question of restraining horses, mules, asses, cattle, goats, swine and sheep from running at large, the same law, governing counties is hereby applied to said townships, and said petitioners shall not be debarred the right to restrain said animals if a majority of the qualified voters of said townships, voting at any general or special election, shall vote in favor of so restraining such animals. Nothing in this section shall be so construed as to debar*246 the right of restraining any two' or more species of such animals.”
The learned circuit judge, after reviewing the history of the legislation in regard to restraining stock from running at large, said:
“As the law now stands the stock law may be adopted in a county by a majority vote of those voting on the proposition, but when it is sought to adopt it in townships, there must be a majority voting for it of the voters who vote at the election.
“A similar condition is found, and in almost the exact terms, in the Constitutional provisions as to the adoption and repeal of the township organization law. Section 8, article 9, of the Constitution provides that the law can be adopted by the vote of a majority of the voters voting at the election. Section 9 provides that it may be repealed by a majority of the voters voting on the proposition.
“In State ex rel. Litson v. McGowan, 138 Mo. 187, the Supreme Court draws a clear distinction between the two propositions, and declares that it was the evident intention to require less in the repeal than the adoption of the law. Tested by the same rule, it is evident that the Legislature intended to require more to adopt the stock law by townships than by counties, that is, it may be adopted in a county by a majority of the qualified voters who vote on the proposition, but in order to adopt it in five townships, there must be in favor of the proposition a majority of the voters voting at the election. It appears by the return to the writ of certiorari in this case that the vote on the proposition was taken at the general election held November 8, 1906, and that there were polled at such election 2,030 votes, of which 903 voted in favor of the proposition. This not being a majority of the voters voting at such election, the law was not adopted.”
We fully concur in the views of the learned circuit
Tht judgment is affirmed.