Moore v. Griffin

Full title: MOORE v. GRIFFIN

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 17, 1908

81 S.C. 393 (S.C. 1908)

62 S.E. 545

Opinion

7033

October 17, 1908.

Petition by J.G. Moore against J.O. Griffin asking for a writ of certiorari requiring the State Executive Democratic Committee to certify to the Supreme Court the record in the matter of contest between the parties before the County Executive Committee of Colleton county and appealed to the State Democratic Executive Committee.

Mr. Justice Woods granted the writ on October 9th and made same returnable before Supreme Court on October 16th.

The matter was heard by the Court on October 16th upon return of the State committee. The contention of contestant was that, although contestee had received the majority of the votes cast for county supervisor at the second primary election in Colleton county, he should not be declared elected because he had not filed before the second primary an itemized sworn statement of his expenses and disbursements in connection with his campaign. There was no question as to his having filed such statement in the office of clerk of court before the first election.

Messrs. Fishburne Fishburne and P.H. Nelson, for contestant.

Messrs. J.S. Griffin and Padgett Lemacks, contra.

October 17, 1908.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the petition herein, a writ of certiorari was issued by Associate Justice C.A. Woods, directed to the State Democratic Executive Committee, requiring that committee to certify to this Court their proceedings in the matter of the contest between J.E. Moore and J.O. Griffin, candidates for the office of supervisor in the County of Collection. The committee having certified their proceedings to this Court, the Court, having heard argument thereon, is of the opinion that the contestee, J.O. Griffin, complied with the statute of the State, and the Constitution and Rules of the Democratic party, in filing his pledge and statement of expenses, and that no error of law was committed by the State Democratic Executive Committee.

The Court, therefore, adjudges that the return to the writ is sufficient and that the proceedings herein be dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE GARY did not sit in this case.