{
  "id": 1646446,
  "name": "Guthrie v. Baker",
  "name_abbreviation": "Guthrie v. Baker",
  "decision_date": "1955-03-07",
  "docket_number": "5-614",
  "first_page": "752",
  "last_page": "755",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "224 Ark. 752"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "276 S.W.2d 54"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "223 Ark. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1650255
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/223/0281-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 5325,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4276774396404676e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6502396471763412
    },
    "sha256": "19e1f52a8effaed2ae64dedc4532a885e487f4ca010c0f2a9d27dc6b038b2f42",
    "simhash": "1:e2c99eab714b2cc7",
    "word_count": 883
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:52.725032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Guthrie v. Baker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ward, J.\nWe consider here what testimony is admissible in circuit court on appeal from an order of the county court declaring the results of an election for membership to the County Board of Education.\nAppellant and appellee were rival candidates for membership on the County Board of Education in Zone 2, Searcy County at a regular election held March 20, 1954. On March 22, 1954, the Board of Election Commissioners canvassed the reported returns and found therefrom that appellant received 223 votes and appellee received 205 votes in the following designated polling places, viz; Marshall, Landis, and Morning Star. The returns from Harriett [apparently the same as Hickory Hollow] polling place, showing 2 votes for appellant and 23 votes for appellee, were submitted to said Election Commissioners but they refused to recognize or tabulate the ballots. The result was that the Election Commissioners certified appellant as the winner.\nFour days later, pursuant to statute, the Searcy County Court, with the County Judge presiding and with election officials from all four previously named polling places present, recognized and canvassed the returns from all of said polling places. The Court found that appellant received 225 votes and that appellee received 228 votes, certifying that result by proper order which is now of record in Book 18 at Page 20 of the Records of Searcy County.\nFrom the above order of the Searcy County Court appellant, in apt time, appealed to the Circuit Court.\nAppellant makes no contention that the County Court made any numerical error in tabulating the votes in either of the four polling places mentioned above, and he concedes that this is not a contest proceeding. He did however contend in the trial court and contends here that the County Board of Election Commissioners did not designate \u201cHarriett\u201d as a polling place and that they named no officials and furnished no supplies for an election to be held at such place.\nThe trial court took the view that, in this kind of a proceeding, appellant had no right to go behind the county court\u2019s order or to show that the votes cast at \u201cHarriett\u201d were illegal votes. The trial court therefore held incompetent all testimony offered by appellant on the above issue, and likewise held incompetent testimony offered by appellee to establish the validity of the \u201cHarriett\u201d votes.\nAppellant offered to prove, in effect: That the County Board of Election Commissioners met approximately one week before the election and designated as polling places Marshall, Morning Star, and Landis; That they named election officials for these places only, and; That \u201cHarriett\u201d was not selected as a voting place and no election officials or supplies were provided for such place.\nAppellee offered to show: That \u201cHarriett\u201d had been a voting place for many years; That the President and Secretary of the Marshall School District in Zone 2 caused a notice of the election to be run, over their signatures, in the county newspaper on February 26, March 5 and March 12, designating all four of the places heretofore mentioned as polling places; That election supplies were delivered to \u201cHarriett\u201d by the same person and at the same time that supplies were delivered to the other three places, and; That the voters at \u201cHarriett\u201d selected and qualified election officials, held an election, and delivered the official returns, showing the result before stated, to the county clerk.\nWe find ourselves in complete agreement with the views expressed by the trial judge. The proffered testimony mentioned above was not competent. The trial court was correct in approving the order of the County Court and in dismissing the appeal. He was also correct in concluding that this case is controlled by the decision in Parsons v. Mason, 223 Ark. 281, 265 S. W. 2d 526.\nThis action, concededly, is not an election contest. Such a contest might have been instituted under the provisions of Act 366 of 1951 [Ark. Stats., \u00a7 80-321 to \u00a7 80-323] to challenge the legality of the votes cast at the \u201cHarriett\u201d polling place. By this procedure relief is sought under Act 403 of 1951 [Ark. Stats., \u00a7 80-318 to \u00a7 80-319]. Under the former Act litigation originates in the circuit court, while under the later Act the circuit court acquires jurisdiction, as here, by appeal from the county court.\nThese two Acts were considered and clearly distinguished in the Parsons case, supra. In regard to jurisdiction of the county court under Act 403 we there said: \u201cThat court merely canvasses the returns and declares the result, its order constituting a permanent record of the outcome of the election.\u201d In speaking of the jurisdiction of the circuit court on appeal, we then said: \u201cAn appeal from that order would merely test the correctness of the court\u2019s tabulation of the returns.\u201d Following the above and having reference to Act 366, we said: \u201cAn election contest, on the other hand, involves the matter of going behind the returns and inquiring into the qualifications of the electors and other matters affecting the validity of the ballots.\u201d\nIn accord with the views above expressed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ward, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Willis <& Walker and N. J. Henley, for appellant.",
      "Fitton <& Adams, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Guthrie v. Baker.\n5-614\n276 S. W. 2d 54\nOpinion delivered March 7, 1955.\nWillis <& Walker and N. J. Henley, for appellant.\nFitton <& Adams, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0752-01",
  "first_page_order": 774,
  "last_page_order": 777
}