Richardson v. Blackstone

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case grows out of an election held, or attempted to be held, on June 5th (the first Wednesday in June), 1918, for the election of a Mayor and one councilman of Crisfield. The Circuit Court for Somerset County had previously, on May 23rd, 1918, passed an order, in the mandamus proceeding of David Saltz v. Mayor and Council of Crisfield, “that a permanent writ of mandamus issue directed to the said Mayor and Council of Orisfield commanding them and each of them to take, or cause to be taken, such preliminary ⁵³² steps as may and shall be necessary and perform such acts, o>r cause them to be performed, as are necessary and proper to hold a city election on June 5th, 1918, for the election of a Mayor in place of Charles E. Richardson, and a councilman in place of J. B. Nelson, whose terms are about to expire under and by virtue of the statutes now existing, as well as of those existing on June 1st, 1918, etc.” On the same day the writ was issued, and served upon the Mayor and two of the councilmen. Oha June 1st, 1918, an order for appeal was filed and two days later a petition of the Mayor and Council asking the Court to fix the penalty of an appeal bond.

According to the docket entries certified by the clerk in the Baltz case, nothing further appears to' have been done in that case. On June 10th, 1918, a certificate of election was issued by the clerk of the Circuit Court for Somerset County in which it is stated “that it appears from the returns of the judges of an ■election held in the City of Crisfield on the 5th day of June, 1918, being the first Wednesday in June of said year, for the purpose of electing a Mayor of the City of Crisfield, that Grover Blackstone received the largest number of votes for said office' and I further certify that the said Grover Blackstone was at said election elected Mayor of the City of Crisfield.” On July 6th, 1918, the petition for mandamus in this case was filed by the said Grover Blackstone, in which he alleges that he is q. taxpayer, resident and qualified voter in the City of Crisfield and has been so- for twelve months preceding the 5th day of June, 1918; that on the first Wednesday in June he was duly elected Mayor of Crisfield; that on the third Monday in June after said election he as Mayor and Saltz as councilman met as provided by law, took the oath of office required for qualification and entered upon the discharge of their duties as Mayor- and councilman; that other members of the Council refused to attend said meeting; that an alleged ⁵³³ City Government has been set np by another Mayor and Council, composed of Charles F. Richardson, a citizen of Crisfield who claims, to be Mayor, and William E. Ward, A. B. Riggan and Lorie B. Quinn, all of whom claim to have been elected and qualified for these, respective offices as councilmen at an alleged meeting of said pretended body held on June 12th, 1918, by the votes of J. Bunyon Nelson, A. B. Riggan and John F. Bedsworth, after the terms of Charles F. Richardson as Mayor, J. Bunyon Nelson and John T. Bedsworth (who at that meeting resigned as councilman) a..s eouncilmen had expired, at which meeting J. Bunyon Nelson and John T. Bedsworth were present and voting, and at which meeting neither Blaekstone nor Saltz were present; that said pretended meeting, proceedings, election and qualification wore each and all illegal and void and none of said persons pretending to be elected and qualified at said meeting were in fact so elected and qualified; that after siaid election on June 5th, no contest was instituted by any persons voted for at said election, for either of said offices against your petitioner for his seat as Mayor, or David Saltz for his seat as councilman; that since the election on June 5th, 1918, the said Richardson and said pretended councilman have ignored the legally elected Mayor and the legally elected councilman, and have contumaciously attempted and assumed after said election to* be the governing power of the city and to fill vacancies; that- among other business it is. alleged and published by their authority that they have ordered the clerk of the Council to withhold from the petitioner and the legal Council of Crisfield all the books, papers, documents, seal,, etc., belonging to the city and in his keeping and to which the petitioner as- Mayor had right of free ingress and inspection; that said pretended body declared the election on June 5th, 1918, held under the direction of themselves and of the Court, to be illegal and void and have put forth a claim that they, themselves, are the legal governing body of Crisfield until the election in 1920; that they are still collecting money ⁵³⁴ from the citizens of Crisfield. for taxes and water rent and other sources of revenue, and disbursing the same; that by virtue of the -Charter of Crisfield, the petitioner is entitled to the full control of all officers of the city, who should receive their orders from the Mayor, but owing to the attitude of said Richardson and his claim publicly and continually made to be the Mayor, the said officers either refuse or hesitate to obey the orders of said petitioner and are taking orders and receiving pay from said Richardson and the other persons conspiring with him to usurp the City Government and to perpetuate their official» existence and authority contrary to law; that said situation is manifestly to the great injury and discredit of said city and a serious invasion of the official rights of your petitioner. The prayer of the petition isi that a writ of mandamus may be issued directed to the said Charles F. Richardson, requiring him to surrender to petitioner the office of Mayor of Crisfield. A plea to the jurisdiction was filed to which a demurrer was filed and sustained.

Whereupon answer was filed which was later amended. In said answer and amendment, the defendant Richardson denies that plaintiff is a taxpayer or was at any time within the period of twelve months preceding the 5th day of June, 1918; avers that he is and has been for a considerable period of time a resident of the State of Virginia where he is engaged permanently in business, and has established his residence; denies that said Blackstone was duly elected Mayor of Crisfield on June 5th, 1918; that Saltz was elected councilman, or that the term of Nelson as councilman had expired; that the certificate of the clerk of the Circuit Court-is a valid and lawful certificate; or that the election referred to in said certificate ever took place so as to elect said Blackstone to the office of Mayor of Crisfield in accordance with law, and asserts that said certificate is nugatory; denies that said petitioner had any right or authority to do any act or take any proceedings as Mayor of Oris ⁵³⁵ field or to take the oath of office or that any one was authorized to administer any oath of office to him with respect to the office of Mayor; avers that the defendant Richardson is the Mayor of Orisfield and is lawfully entitled to said office and to exercise all the duties thereof, and that William E. Ward, A. B. Riggan and Lorie O. Quinn have all been duly elected and qualified as couneilmen of Orisfield and are each entitled to be and bold tbe office of couneilmen and to perform the duties thereof. The answer proceeds to state how each of the couneilnten was elected. It alleges that there were no other candidates at said election on June 5th, 1918, except Blackstone and Saltz, and that there was no one to contest said alleged election against said Blackstone, hut that no contest was necessary inasmuch as he was not lawfully elected to the office he pretends to he entitled to and was never eligible; tbe answer denies tbat defendant is pretending to be Mayor of Orisfield and avers that he is the lawful Mayor thereof; denies that he and the couneilmen named have set up a “second” City Government in opposition to that lately elected by the people as alleged in the petition, and avers that there is no Mayor and no council of Orisfield other than himself as Mayor, and Messrs.

Riggan, Ward and Quinn as couneilmen; the answer further denies that defendant has directed the clerk of the council to withhold from said petitioner and from Saltz, all the books, papers, documents-, seal, etc., belonging to the1 city, but says be is informed that the Council of Orisfield passed a resolution so- instructing the clerk; admits that defendant claims that ha is the legal Ma-yo-r of Orisfield, having been elected Mayor on the first Wednesday of June, 1916, for a term of two years, and upon the expiration of his term having been appointed to succeed himself upon the 12th day of Junei, 1918, by the Council of Cfisfield; avers that said alleged election of June 5th, 1918, at which said Blacks-to-ne pretended to have been elected Mayor, was beld without the registration prescribed and required by the Act of 1918, Chapter 529, as necessary ⁵³⁶ and indispensable to said election, and also that there was no legally qualified or constituted election nor any voters or persons qualified or authorized hy law to take part in said election as provided for hy law, and that the persons who voted and took part therein were unauthorized to do so; that there was not any return hy the registration officer of his registration hook with an alphabetical list of persons, registered or rejected, as required hy said act; that the persons who acted as judges of election did not possess the qualifications required hy the Charter, and were not authorized, qualified or empowered hy law to hold and conduct said election. The answer further denies the jurisdiction of the Court. To. the first paragraph of this answer a replication was filed and a demurrer to the rest of the answer, and the demurrer being overruled, issrm was joined on the remaining paragraphs of the answer. ✓ The case was tried hy the Court without a jury, testimony was taken and on June 21st, 1918, the writ of mandamus ordered to he issued. From which order an appeal was prayed, and on the