Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

87 S.C. 150

69 S.E 157

McLaughlin v. Zeigler

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 21, 1910

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1910-10-21

Petition in the original jurisdiction of this Court by T. J. McLaughlin for writ of certiorari against J. L. Zeigler and the State Executive Committee. McLaughlin and Zeigler were both candidates for Supervisor in Calhoun county. McLaughlin contested the election of Zeigler on the ground that he had not filed in time after the election a sworfi statement of further moneys spent or provided in the election.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1952

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1910-10-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1October 21, 1910. This was an application for a writ of certiorari addressed to the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

¶2There are two reasons why the writ should be denied.

¶3(1). Because there was no notice of protest served upon J.L. Zeigler the respondent, and

¶4(2). Because there was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act.

¶5Petition dismissed.

¶6MR. JUSTICE WOODS. I concur in dismissing the petition on the ground that there was no notice of protest served on J.L. Zeigler, respondent. I dissent, however, from the conclusion that there was a substantial compliance with the statute in filing the statement. The statutory requirement is that the statement made after the election shall include and embrace "all further moneys spent or provided" by the candidate in the election. In limiting the statement to moneyspent and not including money provided, I think Mr. Zeigler did not comply with the statute, and it seems to me to hold that the variance was not substantial opens the door to evasion of a statutory provision vitally affecting the purity of elections. *152

/87/sc/150 · .json · Public domain