Coffey v. Edmonds

Contested Flection—Ballot—Misnomer—Vignette—Breakage of Seal of Package.—M. A. Edmonds having received a certificate of election as Superior Judge of San Francisco, his election was contested by C., and upon a recount in the Superior Court, the Court held that the former had a majority of eight votes. Upon appeal the contestant relied upon the following grounds of objection: 1. Five ballots were counted for Edmonds which read “For Judge of the Superior Court, M. A. Edwards. ” 2. That one ballot counted for E. was composed of a half of each of two tickets; the entire ticket of the Republican party, ■ except the vignette, being attached to the vignette of the Democratic party. 3. Another ballot had the words “For President, Hancock and English” written in lead pencil upon its face under the words, at the top of the names, “Eleventh Senatorial District.” A On another ballot the contestant claimed that the name M. A. Edmonds had been erased by a pencil line drawn through it—the respondent claiming that it appeared from the ballot that the pencil line had been rubbed off so as to cancel the erasure. 5. When a package of ballots from one precinct was brought into Court by a deputy clerk to be examined and counted in its turn, the seal was found broken and the strings loose, but there was no evidence that any ballot had been tampered with, and when the package came into the custody of the Court it was properly sealed. 6. Forty-two ballots of the National Greenback Labor party were counted for respondent which differed from the regular ticket of the party in the following particulars, viz.: in the vignette of the ticket were the words “Ninth District,” instead of “Ninth Senatorial District;” and below, the words “For Assemblyman” instead of the words “For Member of the Assembly,” and the words for “Superior Judge,” instead of the words “For Judge of the Superior Court.” 7. From one ballot of the Democratic party as originally printed the name was erased and the name of “ Edmundson” written in its place. Upon the 1st, 2d, and 7th points the Court not being fully in accord expressed no opinion. Upon the other points held as follows, viz.: Upon the 3d, that the ballot was good; upon the 4th, that the question whether or not the attempted erasure had been canceled was a question for the Court below to find, and that, upon an inspection of the ballot, the question was so far doubtful that this Court was not inclined to interfere; upon the 5th, that when the package came to the Court properly sealed, the object of the law requiring it to be sealed was accomplished, and that while in the custody of its officers, in the absence of any proof, the law would not presume an act of bad faith on their part; upon the 6th, that the ballots were good. Judgment was accordingly affirmed.