Forester v. Town of North Wilkesboro

ClabicsoN, J. We have examined the record and briefs of the litigants with care and see no prejudicial error in the record. The exceptions and assignments of error made by plaintiffs cannot be sustained. Chapter 562, Public Laws, 1933, is entitled: “An act to promote efficiency in the organization and economy in the administration of the public schools of the State; to provide for the operation of a uniform system of schools in the whole of the State, for a term of eight months, without the levy of any ad valorem tax therefor.” Section 35 of said act, in part, is as follows: “All Public, Public-Local or Private Laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this act, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed.” See S. v. Kelly, 186 N. C., 365 (371-2). Section 17, in part: “That the county board of education in any county administrative unit, and the board of trustees in any city administrative unit, with the approval of the tax levying authorities in said county or city administrative unit and the State School Commission in order to operate the schools of a higher standard than those provided for by State support, but in no event to provide for a term of more than 180 days may supplement any object or item of school expenditure,” etc. Provision is made to submit the matter to a vote of the people in the administrative unit. From an examination of the record, we think there are only two main contentions of plaintiffs to be considered: First, is to the effect that the request shall be filed “with the tax levying authorities in each city, county and city administrative unit on or before the *351 15th day of June on forms provided by the State School Commission.” Plaintiffs contend this provision is mandatory. It is contended by defendants that the administrative unit for the town of North Wilkesboro was not set up until after 15 June, 1933, and therefore it was impossible to file a request for a special election until after that date — on 30 June, 1933. The board of trustees of the North Wilkesboro unit filed a written petition requesting that a special election be held to levy a tax of 20 cents on the $100.00 valuation of property, the tax to be used to supplement the salaries of teachers and other expenses incidental to the opening of the North Wilkesboro high school. The board of commissioners of the town of North Wilkesboro on 4 July, 1933, called the special election to be held on 15 August, 1933, appointing a registrar and two judges, one in favor of the tax and one against the tax. Notice of the registration and election was published substantially as required by law. The defendants contend that the matter was directory. The plaintiffs’ contention cannot be sustained from the facts and circumstances of this case. The machinery for the election was commenced within a reasonable time under the facts and circumstances of this case. The second contention of plaintiffs, is to the effect that the election was held on 15 August, 1933, but the registration books were ordered and kept open on Saturdays: 8, 15, 22, and 29 July, and not the following Saturday in August — the law requiring four Saturdays and a Saturday for challenge day prior to the election. On the other hand, the defendants contend this was inadvertently done by the commissioners, but this did not affect the result of the election; that on the Saturday in question, no voters presented themselves for registration, either at the polling place or to the registrar personally. The election was discussed pro and con .from the date of 4 July, 1933, when it was ordered by the commissioners, to 15 August, 1933, when the election was actually held, 715 voters registered for the special election. At the election, there were 383 votes cast for tax and 93 votes against the tax. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we see no harm has come to plaintiffs from this inadvertence and plaintiffs’ contention cannot be sustained. “In Hill v. Skinner, 169 N. C., at page 412, it is held: 'The ultimate conclusions from the authorities is thus stated in A. & E., Enc. (2 ed.), at pp. 755, 767: The general principles to be drawn from the authorities are, that honest mistakes or mere omissions on the part of the election officers, or irregularities in directory matters, even though gross, if not fraudulent, will not avoid an election, unless they affect the result, or at least render it uncertain. But if the irregularities are so-great that the election is not conducted in accordance with law, either in form or substance, and there are matters of substance that render the result uncertain, or whether they are fraudulent and the result is *352 made doubtful thereby, the returns should be set aside.’ ” Penland v. Bryson, City, 199 N. C., 140 (148). We do not think on the entire record that the court below erred in refusing to continue the temporary restraining order to the final hearing. It appears from the record that the taxes to a great extent, have been paid under the levy made. As to them, the question may be academic. We see no prejudicial error on the record, but we may say that all elections should be carefully conducted under the law, of course a substantia] compliance is all that is required, but public officers cannot be too careful in these matters. The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.