Tharpe v. Hardison
Supreme Court of Georgia
Certiorari. Fence Laws. Voters. Parties. Actions. Ordinary. Elections. Before Judge Simmons. Houston Superior Court. April Term, 1882. To the report «contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add that it nowhere appeared that defendant in error was a freeholder. It appeared that he was a justice of the peace, and one of the election managers. Tharpe was among the petitioners for election, but the notice of contest was directed to Tharpe et al.
Read the full summary
Certiorari. Fence Laws. Voters. Parties. Actions. Ordinary. Elections. Before Judge Simmons. Houston Superior Court. April Term, 1882. To the report «contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add that it nowhere appeared that defendant in error was a freeholder. It appeared that he was a justice of the peace, and one of the election managers. Tharpe was among the petitioners for election, but the notice of contest was directed to Tharpe et al. It does not appear that all the petitioners were made parties, nor on which side Tharpe voted.
1Opinion of the Court
Crawford, Justice.
Upon the petition of B. F. Tharpe, and fifty-four other freeholders of Houston county, an election was ordered by the ordinary, in which the question of “ fence ” or “ no fence” was submitted to the lawful voters of that county.
On the day after the election, the managers, from all *281the precincts except two, met at the court-house to consolidate the returns.
This they did, and, after rejecting those which had been sent up from some of the precincts, which were considered illegal, they certified to the ordinary that the true result of the election was a majority of 295 for “ no…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Turk v. RoyalCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Seymour v. AlmondSupreme Court of Georgia · 1886
- Stinson v. ManningSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
- Steward v. PeytonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1886
- Holtzendorf v. Glynn CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949