Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1889-01-17

said election, consisting in part of |
willful and unlawful destruction of
legal ballots cast by the voters Of said
township for the said confession, and
the unlawful and wrongful substitution
therefor, by said judges, of illegal bal
lots which contained the name and
were counted by said judges for the
said B. w. Peck, for said Office of
probate judge.
The contestee, for his answer, de-
mics the allegations in said statement
for contest. and says that there was a
mistake in counting the votes in the
townships of Lyon, Liberty, Logan,
Noble, Newbern. Garfield, Willowdale,
Flora, Hayes, Fragrant Hill and the
Third ward of the city of Abilene; and
that one Samuel Stark, who was not
legal voter, voted for the confession in
Grant township, that one Alexander
Kindness, who was not legal voter,
voted for the confession in the township
of Garfield; and that one John Teller,
who was not legal voer, voted for
said confession in township of Hope;
but upon the trial the contestee seems
to have abandoned all his claims set out
in his answer, except as to the miscount
in Buckeye and Lyon townships and
his claims in regard to the voters Sam
uel Stark in Grant township and John
Teller in Hope township.
The conteSt0r, for his reply, denies
the statements Of the cnntestee in his
answer anil a.'egcs shat there wtre
mistakes in several townships men
toned in the contestee'S answer made
by the judges of election, whereby a
greater number of votes were counted
for said conte5tee that were legally
cast for him, and a less number of
votes were counted for the confession
than were legally cast for him, and
| further that one James Howe was a
| legal voter in Noble township of said
county and offered to vote for the con-
testor. and that his vote was wrong
fully and illegally rejected, and that it
should have been received and counted
for the confession. The confession. how
ever, appears to have abandoned this
claim on the hearing.
On the hearing, the various ballots
questioned by either party to the con-
test were marked and numbered as
hereinafter referred to. In Detroit
precinct we find a Democratic ticket
with the name of W. 2. Seeds for pro-
bate Judge marked out with lead
pencil, and with the name of B. W.
Peck written in the blank under the
words, For County Attorney" there
having been no Democratic candidate
for county attorney and the place for
the name of that officer having been
left blank upon the ticket. In the
order IN which the names of the candi-
dates appear upon the ticket-cOunty
attorney Immediately following probate
judge-we are of opinion and find that
this ballot should not be counted; with
the result, as far as Detroit precinct is
concerned, that Mr.. Peck loses one
vote.
In Buckeye township we find that
ballots numbered one and two, "W.
Seeds, should be counted for Seeds;
that ballots numbers three and four,
where the name of Seeds is written in
with leadpencil, should not be count
ed; and that ballot number five, where
Peck's name is scratched out and some
writing that we are unable to read
written with lead pencil, should not
be counted; with the result that we
lind no changes in Buckeye, and that
he report of the canvassers is correct.
In Lyon township We find that bal
lots one, two, three and four should
not be counted; that ballot number
five, Peck" ballot number six, 81. L.
Seeds" eight, Seeds" ballot number
nine, Nv. Seeds" ballot number ten,
Seeds" ballot number eleven. where
Seeds" is written over the words,
For Probate Judge" ballot number
twelve, Seeds" ballot number four
teen, "B. Peck" ballot number fifteen,
''B. Peck" with "W. P. Seeds'' writ
ten in place of the name j. S. Ford
for SUPERINTENDENT of public instruc-
ton, and ballot number seventeen, "B.
w. Peck" where lead pencil mark had
been erased, should be counted, and
that ballot number thirteen, with the
name of Peck printed and notscratched
and the name Seeds written with a
lead pencil, and ballot number eighteen
should not be counted; with the result
that in Lyon township Peck gains one
vote and Seeds loses two votes.
In Hope township John Teller, who
was at the time resident of Jefferson
township and not lawful voter in
Hope township, voted for Seeds; with
the result that Seeds loses one vote in
Hope township.
Samuel Stark, who, at the time of
the election, was a minor and not en-
titled to vote, voted for Seeds in Grant
township; with the result that Seeds
loses one vote in Grant township.