State v. Cohoon, 34 N.C. 178, 12 Ired. 178 (1851)

June 1851 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

34 N.C. 178, 12 Ired. 178

THE STATE v. REUBEN COHOON.

Qne, who votes illegally at an election of sheriff, cannot defend himself aglaitlst, an indictment, upon the ground that the election was conducted irregularly.

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 bo objected to in a direct proceeding before that tribunal.

Appeal from; the Superior ‘Court of Law oí Tyrrell County, at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.

This was- an 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-saidCounty on the first Thursday of August A. D. 1851: That pollsfor that purpose were opened at a place, known as the Gum Neck precinct, in said County, under the superintendance of inspectors, duly ap,-pointed 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 returns 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 the year 1837 and ior 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 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-Oounty 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 sworns the election was illegal, and the defendants could not be convicted.

His Honor charged the jury, that the alleged irregularities did'not invalidate the election so far as this case was concernedand, that, if the jury beliéved 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 over-ruled. Judgment against the defendant, from which he appealed to the Supreme - Court.

Attorney General, for the State.

Heath, for the defendant.

Peajison, J.

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 inspector's. 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 validity of the election or any alleged ir-, regularities 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* Ordered to be certified accordingly.