Dick

Austin v. Dick

Good Law
100 Cal. 199·1893 Cal. LEXIS 769·34 P. 655
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 30, 1893No. 18184California739 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an appeal taken to obtain a modification of a judgment in an election contest.

*200 It appears from the complaint that at the general election, November 8,1892, plaintiff and defendant were candidates, and the only persons voted for, for the office of supervisor of the third supervisorial district in the county of Modoc; and that at such election plaintiff received eighty-seven, and defendant eighty-five, votes; that the votes were canvassed November 14,1892, but the board refused to declare plaintiff elected, and afterwards, on the 8th of December of the same year, declared the defendant elected.

The complaint then proceeds to set out certain alleged irregularities at the election, and, among them, that the board of judges at a certain precinct failed to count for plaintiff one vote which had been cast for him, and that the alleged misconduct and irregularity “procured said Morris Dick to be declared elected to said office of supervisor, when he had not received the highest number of legal votes therefor.”

The answer denies that said defendant Morris Dick was, or has ever been, declared elected at said election, but avers that the board of canvassers declared the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.