Court and Legal
Miner vs. Hassing
Source: The Western Advance (Worthington, MN) March 14, 1874; transcribed by Mary Kay Krogman
NOTICES OF CONTEST.
Notice. U. S. Land Office, Jackson, Minn., Feb. 20, 1874.
Complaint having been entered at this office by A. Miner against John Hassing, for abandoning Homestead Entry No. 8672, dated Feb'y 17, 1873, upon the NW 1/4 section 20, township 104, range 40, in Murray County, Minnesota, with a view to the cancellation of said entry; the said parties are hereby summoned to appear at this office on the 25th, day of March, 1874, at 9 o'clock a. m., to respond and furnish testimony concerning said alleged abandonment.
J. A. LEONARD, Register.
J. B. WAKEFFIELD, Receiver.
- - 1896 - - JUDGE BROWN'S OPINION (Stine vs. Canvassing Board)
Source: Minneapolis Journal (MN) Thursday, January 2, 1896; transcribed by Mary Kay Krogman
He's a Bigger Man Than the Election Law and the Atty.-Gen.
Special to The Journal.
Slayton, Minn., Jan. 2.-Judge Brown has rendered his decision in the case of W. B. Stine vs. the canvassing board of Murray county. Mr. Stine and others received votes at the election in 1894 for the office of clerk of the district court of this county. In this and 12 other counties of the state the term of the clerk of court expired today, and it would be necessary to elect that officer at the election in 1894.
To prevent this jog in the election of officers, the legislature of 1891 passed a law declaring a vacancy in that office in these 12 counties on Jan. 1, 1896, and providing for filling the vacancy by appointment. Accordingly, the attorney general rendered an opinion that no election for clerk of court would be held in these counties in 1894, and the county auditors left no place on the official ballot for that office. In this county, the day before election, several candidates procured "stickers" and on election day, in some of the townships, voters pasted these "stickers" on the regular ballot. Of the votes thus cast Mr. Stine received a plurality, but the canvassing board refused to canvass the votes, because of the ruling of the attorney general, whose counsel they solicited, and also because the Australian election law explicitly prohibits the use of "stickers" except in case of death of a regularly nominated candidate. Judge Cadwell assisted Judge Brown in the case. The following are their conclusions of law:
The plaintiff is entitled to judgment in this action for his costs and disbursements. The plaintiff is also entitled to judgment adjudging that a peremptory writ of mandamus forthwith, directed to the defendants, commanding them to forthwith reconvene and canvas the returns in the office of the county auditor of said county of the votes cast for the office of clerk of the district court of said county at the election held in said county on Nov. 6, 1894, and make a statement of such vote, as required by law, and declare the person having the highest number of votes for said office duly elected. Let judgment be entered accordingly.
Murray County Home Page
Visit our National Site:
© Copyright by GenealogyTrails