The morning call., 1891-10-09
SONOMA'S JUDGE.
The Supreme Court Favors Can.
didate Rutledge.
Remaining of the Celebrated Election Case.
Red Ink Is Not Uncommon Ink-Pen-
ell Marks on Ballots.

The Supreme Court has reversed the de-
cision Of the lower court in the celebrated
election case Of Rut}edge against Crawford.
The parties to the action were opposing
candidates for the Office Of Judge of the
Superior Court of Sonoma County, at the
general election Of 1890.
r. Z. Crawford was given a certificate of
election, and his opponent, Thomas Rut-
ledge, brought suit 10 contest his right
thereto. AS a result of the trial and recount
in the Superior Court, 1t appeared that
Crawford received one vote more than Rut-
ledge, and the latter was nonsulted.
Rutledge appealed on the ground that the
court erred in counting certain ballots for
Crawford, and in refusing to count certain
ballots for himself Two ballots, regular
on their face, but with Rutledge's name,
were not counted because there was on the
back of each of them faint impression ola
portion of the face of a similar ticket, an
impression known among printers as an
off et," produced when there is too much
ink upon the type used and when one sheet
is placed face downward upon the back of
another which has preceded it from the
press.
The Supreme Court held that the lower
court erred in refusing to count these ballots,
because there was no proof TO show that the
marking of the two tickets by the offset"
was intentional.
ACCIDENTALLY MARKED.
Besides these two ballots which were not
counted for Rutledge were two others that
were rejected. Each was regular on the
face, but one If them had on the back very
small piece OF red sealing-waX and the other
a small stain, as if made by drop of oil.
Tho hpl6 that thpsp tipketS
should also have been admitted, as It Is nat
ural to suppose that they were marked ac-
cidentally and were not intended to distn-
guish the ballot or impart knowledge OF the
person who voted it.
The lower court erred also in counting as
a vote Tor Crawford ticket bearing the
name of Rutledge, and from which the name
of the candidate for Senator had been erased
and Crawford's name written opposite the
erasure. The Supreme Court ruled on this
point that the intention of the voter. as 1t
appeared on the face of the ballot, was to
vote for Crawford for State Senator and not
Tor Superior Judge, and it should have been
counted.
Upon certain other ballots Crawford's
name was erased with an indelble pencil
and Rutledge'S name was written opposite
in the same kind OF pencil. The lower court
counted these ballots for Crawford, who in
sisted that he was entitled TO have them
counted for him because the Political Code
provides that. when upon ballot found
in any ballut-box q name has been erased
and another substituted therefor in any
other manner than by the use of a lead pen
| Gil or common writing ink the substituted
name must be rejected, and the name
| erased Qf it can be ascertained from an In
| spection Of the BALLOT must be counted"
THE USE OF PENCILS.
Evidence was introduced to show that
indelible pencils are not lead pencils, and
the question was thus presented whether
voter must follow the very section Of the
| law in preparing his ticket. The Supreme
| Court rules that such is not the meaning Of
| the code, and says:
This section In declaring that erasures and
change OF names shall not be made In any other
manner than by the use OF a lead pencil or COM
mon writing ink really means that the erasure
| aud substitution shall not be made In any other
style or TOM, or with any different effect than
would be produced by the use OF a lead pencil or
| common willing ink. The law looks only TO
matters OF substance. and does mol waste It's
energy In pursuit. Of shadows, and II the appear
auce OF having been made with a lead pencil Is
| produced by the use OF an ndelible pencil there
Is Il substantial compliance with the statute
The court further held that the lower
court also erred in count ng ballot for
Crawford in which his name was erased
with red ink and the name of j. w. Oates
written in place of it also in red ink. The
lower court ruled that red ink is not COM
mon ink within the meaning OF the statute,
but the appellate tribunal refused to take
this view OF the matter
There were numerous other rulings Of the
lower court which the appellate court did
not indOrse, and the judgment was ordered
reversed and the cause renanded for fur
Their proceeding not inconsistent with the
opinion.