Sanford, Orange County High School v., Sanford, Trustees Wylly Academy v., Sherlock v. Mayor and City of Jacksonville, Sloan & Co., et als., Bauknight, et al., v., State, ex rel., v. Board of County Canvassers, State, ex rel., v. Board of State Canvassers, 386 9 29 State, ex rel., v. Drew, 67 State, ex rel., v. Inspectors Election Madison County, 26 The head notes in each case were prepared by the Judge who delivered the opinion. Decisions OF THE Supreme Court of Florida, AT A SPECIAL TERM CONVENED NOVEMBER 16, A. D. 1878. STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. H. BISBEE, JR., vs. THE BOARD of COUNTY CANVASSERS OF ALACHUA COUNTY. 1. 2. 3. State courts It is not a valid objection to the jurisdiction of in mandamus proceedings, relating to the canvass of election returns, that the office affected is that of Representative in Congress. A return by election inspectors, in which the votes cast for a person are given twice or repeated, constitutes no ground for refusing to include such return in the statement or certificate by the county canvassers, it being on its face a mere verbal repetition, and not an attempt to misstate the votes cast. The fact that the statement sent to the Clerk contained such repetition, while that sent to the County Judge did not contain it, does not create such a variance between them as to authorize their rejection. When the jurat to the oath of inspectors of election is not signed, or when the inspectors have not been sworn, but have acted as such and made proper returns, their acts are valid and their return of election should be counted. 4. A statement in the caption of inspectors' returns forwarded to the Judge that the election was held under an act of 1868 and the amendments thereto, (without giving the dates of the amendments,) while that sent to the Clerk gave the date of the act and Ex rel. Bisbee vs. Board Co. Canvassers Alachua Co.-Statement of Case. 5. 6. 7. also the amendments, does not render the returns indefinite, uncertain, constradictory, or, in any sense, repugnant to each other, but they are regular and conformable to law. The difference is immaterial. County canvassers cannot look beyond the inspectors' returns except to determine their genuineness as being signed by inspectors appointed or elected as such of the precinct. Ballots found in a ballot-box cannot be considered by the county canvassers. Where the County Judge and Clerk have called in a Justice of the Peace, who acts with them in canvassing election returns, the Justice becomes a member of the board of county canvassers, and is, like the other members, amenable to the writ of mandamus to control or correct their action. A certificate showing in general terms a performance of the several specific acts commanded to be done by a peremptory mandamus is the proper response to such a writ. The relator, on the 16th day of November, A. D. 1878, filed a petition stating that on the 5th day of that month a general election was held in the several counties of the State for Representatives to the Forty-Sixth Congress of the United States, and at such election he was one of the candidates for Representative from the Second Congressional District, and that Noble A. Hull was the only other candidate therefor, and they were the only candidates voted for for such representative at such election. It further states that J. A. Carlisle, Clerk of the Circuit Court, J. C. Gardner, County Judge, and E. A. Castellaw, a Justice of the Peace of Alachua county, organized on the 11th day of November as the Board of County Canvassers to canvass the precinct returns; that among the voting precincts or districts in the county were three, known respectively as "Arredondo," "Dudley's Store" and "Gainesville" precincts or districts; that good and intelligible returns of the result of the election in these districts or precincts had been duly made by the inspectors and delivered to the Clerk and County Judge as required by law, and that they were opened and read by said Board of County Canvassers on |