Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State ex rel. Bradford v. Malo

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 15, 1889Published

Motion for Rehearing. The material facts are stated in The State v. Malo, ante, pp. 54, et seq., and in the opinion herein, filed, on October 5, 1889.

1Concurrence

Horton, C. J;:

I cannot concur with the findings of fact or the conclusions of law stated in the foregoing opinion. As I understand the testimony, great injustice is done to the honest voters of Gray county if the judgment is permitted to stand.

I. This proceeding was brought in this court to determine the permanent county seat of Gray county, and if I could conscientiously say from the testimony that a majority of all the voters of Gray county, not influenced by bribes, nor by any other corrupt or illegal means, cast their ballots for Ingalls on October 31, 1887, for the county seat, I would…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Wells v. MarstonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1870
  2. Douglass v. HillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
  3. Bent v. PhilbrickSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
  4. State v. CoulterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API