Opinion
(June Term, 1851.)
1. One who votes illegally at an election of sheriff cannot defend himself against an indictment upon the ground that the election was conducted irregularly.
2. The county court, a majority of the acting justices being present, is the tribunal to decide all contested elections of sheriffs, and the validity of the election or any alleged irregularities can only be objected to in a direct proceeding before that tribunal.
APPEAL from Dick, J., at TYRRELL Spring Term, 1851.
Indictment against the defendant for illegal voting. The case was as follows:
It was proved on the trial that an election for sheriff of Tyrrell County was held in said county on the first Thursday of August, 1851; that polls for that purpose were opened at a place known as the Gum Neck Precinct in said county, under the superintendence of inspectors duly appointed by the county court of said county at the term thereof next preceding said election; that the defendant appeared at the said precinct and voted in said election for sheriff, and was registered in the list of voters in the return of the election at the precinct, which returns, duly certified, were made by the inspectors to the county court clerk as required by law and filed among the records of his office. It further appeared that the defendant had never paid any public tax previous to his giving said vote.
It was shown by the defendant that the inspectors at said poll were not sworn by the sheriff or any other person. That in 1837, and for several years before and after that date, the place in Gum Neck where the elections were held was about two miles distant from the place (179) where the election was held in August last, though both these places were within the locality known as Gum Neck, by which name this precinct was known and called, but that for about four years past the elections have been only held at the place, where the said elections were held in August last. There was no further evidence that any change in the place of holding elections in said precinct was made by the county court aforesaid.
It was contended by the defendant's counsel that the election was not held at the place required by law, for which reason, as well as because the inspectors were not sworn, the election was illegal and the defendant could not be convicted.
His Honor charged the jury that the alleged irregularities did not invalidate the election, so far as this case was concerned, and that if the jury believed from the evidence that the defendant voted in the said election, and had never previously thereto paid any public tax, both which it was incumbent on the State to show, that the defendant would be guilty.
The jury found the defendant guilty. Motion for a new trial for misdirection; motion overruled. Judgment against the defendant, from which he appealed.
Attorney-General for the State.
Heath for defendant.
We concur with his Honor that the alleged irregularities in the manner of holding the election did not invalidate it, so far as this case was concerned.
The returns, duly certified were made by the inspectors to the clerk of the county court and filed among the records of his office as required by law.
The county court, a majority of the acting justices being present, is the tribunal to decide all contested elections of sheriffs. The (180) validity of the election, or any alleged irregularities, can only be objected to in a direct proceeding before that tribunal and cannot be drawn in question in a collateral manner, as was attempted in this case.
PER CURIAM. No error.