Smith v. Rauh

Citations

• 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 515

Syllabus

<p>ELECTIONS — INTOXICATING LIQUORS.</p> <p>1. Rule as to Admissibility of.Parol Proof on Inquiry into Election' Returns Applies to Local Option Election Contest.</p> <p>The rule by which errors in certifying election returns may be-inquired into by parol testimony, by analogy is applicable to-contests of local option elections notwithstanding the specific statute in this ease, Gen. Code 6117, 6118, providing for such-contest does not in terms so declare.</p> <p>2. Courts may, but Election Officers may not, Inquire into Pacts of' Election on Contest Thereof.</p> <p>The function of boards of election officers in declaring the results of. election is ministerial; that of courts in considering contests-of election is judicial and is clearly distinguished; hence, while a board of deputy supervisors is without power to hear evidence to contradict or explain tally sheets, the court has such power and may go back of the returns and inquire into the-facts.</p> <p>3. Certificates of Results of Local Option Election on Contest Thereof Held Superior to Record on Tally Sheets.</p> <p>Certificates and returns of election officers are prima facie evidence of the facts certified, but neither tally sheets nor certificates are conclusive. Hence, while election officers cannot be permitted by parol evidence to impeach their own official acts, yet where the same officers have signed two contradictory returns, one of which must be wrong, they should be permitted or required to explain the discrepancy.</p>