Webster v. Byrnes
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court, Tuolumne County. This was a case of contested election for Supervisor of District Number Three, Tuolumne County. The County Court decided in favor of the defendant by a majority of two votes, and rendered judgment accordingly. In reaching this result, the votes of L. Meyer, Lewis Fattar, Geo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court, Tuolumne County. This was a case of contested election for Supervisor of District Number Three, Tuolumne County. The County Court decided in favor of the defendant by a majority of two votes, and rendered judgment accordingly. In reaching this result, the votes of L. Meyer, Lewis Fattar, Geo. Diller, John Jarnegan, and Valentine Pittorff, cast for plaintiff, were rejected, while the votes of M. R. Whitford and W. G. Smith, cast for defendant, were allowed. The County Court also allowed to be counted for plaintiff the supposed votes of Larkin, Gonsalves, and Haas,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
It is unnecessary to consider the ruling of the Court below in respect to the votes of Diller and Dikeman. The facts in relation to each are substantially the same, and the ruling of the Court was the same. If we were to hold that the Court erred in not counting Biller’s vote for the contestant, we should also be compelled to hold that it erred in not counting Bikeman’s vote for the respondent. So whether their votes be counted or not will make no difference in the result.
Whitford’s vote should have been rejected. His name was not on the roll at Poverty Hill, where…
2Cited by13 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Bledsoe v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- People Ex Rel. Attorney General Ex Rel. Boyer v. TeagueSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. ButtsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- Dells v. KennedyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Bergevin v. CurtzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.