This is a civil cause, and the default of the defendant admits the facts alleged against him. (Wood's Dig., Art. 2163, sec. 63.)
JUDGES: Field, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Baldwin, J., concurring.
OPINION
FIELD, Judge
At the general election held in September, 1859, the defendant was returned elected to the office of Sheriff of Siskiyou county, and the present proceeding was taken to contest his right to the office. A motion to dismiss the proceeding was overruled, and the defendant declining to answer the statement filed by the contestant, the Court, without proof by either party, rendered judgment annulling the election of the defendant, and awarding costs against him. In this respect, the ruling of the Court was clearly erroneous. The public is interested in a contest of this character: it is not a matter solely between the parties to the record, and the popular will is not to be set aside upon a mere failure of a party to respond to charges alleged against his right by an individual elector. It is not sufficient that ample causes of contest be set forth in the statement filed by a contestant: it is requisite that their truth should be established by clear proof before an election can be annulled. The statute in terms provides that the Court shall pronounce judgment, after hearing " the proofs and allegations of the parties," which of course means such as may be made by either or both. If no proof be given on either side, the proceedings should be dismissed. It follows that the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded; and it is so ordered.