
    CASE 27 — ACTION BY G. H. NUNNELLY AND OTHERS AGAINST JOHN G. COLE AND OTHERS.
    May 6, 1910.
    Cole, &c. v. Nunnelly, &c.
    Appeal from Scott Circuit Court.
    R. L. Stout, Circuit Judge.
    Judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.-
    -On motions to dismiss appeal, to quash writ of supersedeas and for time to file transcript, motions overruled except motion granted to file-transcript.
    Intoxicating Liquor’s — Election Contest — Appeal.—The statute regulating contests between public officers does not apply to contested -elections under the prohibition law, and hence an appellant under the prohibition statute need not comply with a provision of the other statute requiring the record to be filed within 30 days after judgment.
    B. M. LEE and JAS. BRADLEY for appellants.
    EDE-LEN & DAYIIS, WM. S. KELLY and J. B. FINNELL for ■appellees.
   Opinion op the Court by

Chiep Justice Barker.

The statute regulating contests between public officers does not apply to contested elections under the prohibition law. Shindler, County Judge, v. Floyd, 118 Ky. 468, 81 S. W. 668, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 668; Erwin v. Benton, 84 S. W. 533, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 108. Therefore the appellants were not required to file the record in this court within 30 days after the judgment. The appellants had a right to supersede the judgment of the circuit court against them. Commonwealth v. Weisenburgh, 126 Ky. 8, 102 S. W. 846, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 449; Simpson v. Commonwealth, 104 S. W. 269, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 821. We think the appellants show sufficient reason for extending the time for filing the transcript:

For these reasons, the motion to dismiss the appeal and the motion to quash the writ of supersedeas are overruled, and the motion of appellants for time to file transcript is sustained.  