Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1897-05-08

where the prohibition is not explicit.
technical defects caused by failure or
neglect of officials rather than of the
voters, will be diSregarded. The gen
eral rule governing such cases is stat
ed in McCreary on Elections at sec
tion 1913 as follows: Those provisions
of a Statute which affect the time and
place of the election, and the legal
qualifications of the electors and gen
orally of the substance of the election.
while those touching the recording
and return of the legal votes received.
and the mode and manner of conduct
ing the details of the election are
directory. The principle is that ir-
regularities which do not tend to
affect the results are not to defeat the
will of the majority The will of the
majority is to be respected, even when
irregularly expressed. The officers of
election may be liable to punishment
for violation of the directory provi-
sions of Statute, yet the people are
not to suffer on account of the default
of their agents." Again at section
1876 the same writer says: ut is rule
well grounded in justice and reason,
and well established by authority and
precedent, either by the fraud or mis-
take of the election officer if it is pos
Sible to prevent it Along this line
of reasoning the Supreme Court of
this state held in the case of BOYD VS..
Al
election board gave to the voters sam
pie ballots printed on cOlOred paper
instead of the regular official ones
printed on white paper, as the law re-
Quires, that the cOlored ballots so cast
must be counted. The decision in
citations of authorities which appear
to sustain the views of this court
that the ruling complained of was
correct.
Next, did the court err in failing to
deduct the votes of Bailey, Baker and
ChriStinSon from those counted for
Barclay? The evidence is silent re-
garding ChriStinSOn'S qualifications
and he has not been referred to by
counsel in his argument, but it is in
sisted with great vigor that the votes
of Bailey and Baker stand on the
same plane as those of ArtZ and Sher-
ry. In urging this proposition coun-
sci appears to overlook the all i'm
portant fact that there is not scin-
tilla of evidence in the whole record
showing that the votes of either of
these parties was cast for Barclay. The
only attempt to establish that fact
| was by the declaration of Bailey made
to III. III. ArtZ about an hour before
he voted, which was, as already stat
| ed, properly rejected. The court.
| however, by it's tenth finding found
that Baily was in fact legal voter.
| There was some evidence to sustain
every statement contained in that
finding. Under the general rule that
findings of a trial court will not be
disturbed unless there is an entire
lack of evidence to sustain them. it
does not now appear to be necessary
for this court TO further consider the
qualifications of Mr.. Bailey, and this
is especially true since his vote could
| in no event be deducted from the
number credited to either party in
the entire absence of competent test
imony tending to show for which one
of the candidates it was cast.
This brings us to a consideration of
the question whether the courts find
| ingS and conclusions in relation to the
legality of the votes of ArtZ, Fordice,
| WeStOver and Sherry can be sustain
ed. So far as they relate to Fordice
and WeStover they are unqueStiOna-
BILE correct. The former is d railroad
conductor running west from Council
| Bluffs. Iowa, who has made home
stead entry. on land in Trego county,
| but the testimony of A. l.. Richard
son, a citizen of the same neighbor-
hood, is to the effect that he never
lived Oh his homestead and has only
visited it temporarily few times.
ii. III. ArtZ, the only witness whose
| testimony gives any color to the
claim that Fordice ever became res
| ident of the county, states that he
first became such in June, 1896, and
he was previously a nonresident of
the state. He, therefore, under the
most favorable view that can possibly
be taken of his case, was not a resi-
dent of the state for the statutory
period of six months next prior to the
date of the election.
The court in passing upon the quail
iticatiOnS OF e. h. WeStOver said: I'VE
lind that E. h. WeStover came into
riverside township from Ness county
on October Sth, 1896, and has not re-
sided thirty days in said township
prior to said election. We therefore
find that he was not legal voter at
said election in said township and
further find that he voted for Jushua
MuSgraye for the office of Commits
Sioner of the First Commissioner Dis
trict of Trego county, Kansas. This
finding was fully supported by the
evidence and is concluSive~of that
The trial court In passing upon the
qualifications of II. III. ArtZ said: 1--WE
lind that HI. I'll. Artz came to said
township OF riverside in the latter
part of 1895, that he remained about