San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-06-02
MAHNCKE IS ALDERMAN.
THIS Is THE DECISION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS.
The fragment of the Lower Court Was
Affirmed = Other Opinions Handed
Down In This Tribunal.

The Vogaer-MahncIee election CON-
test case for alderman of the Psfth
Ward was decided in the Foarth Court
of Civil Appeals this; morning. The
| judgment of the Fopty-fifth District
| court, from which it. was appealed,
was affirmed. Following is, the optimism.
| in parts
| The only QUESTION presented! for the
| consideration of this court Isl as. to
whether the thirty-two ballots, on.
which the designation of the Office for
which V0gler and Mahnoke were can
didates, was erased, should be counted
and 1t is agreed that If they should be
1counted Mahncke should have the Of
flee, and IL not Vogler should have the
office. The record in this case is very
| imperfect and unsatisfactory, butt we
are perhaps: justified in arriving att the
conclusion that the" electors was held
| under the system commonly known, as
| the Australian ballot SYSTEM"
| An inspection of the ballots as we'll. as
the allegations in the pleadings clear
| ly indicate that Mahncke was running
| for but one Office, that of alderman of
the Fifth war2 The votes having bean
cast for Mahncke in his own ward, and
he being a candidate for only one Office
we are led to the conclusion that the
| District judge did not err in counting
them for Mahncke for aldermaa of the.
| Fifth ward. We, do not feal
| disposed to rest our decision on the
| ground that the statute does not res
qufre the designation of the office to. b p
placed on the ballot, but leave that
question open. We are of the oSdnioa.
however, that if the law. required the
| designation of tbs Office on the ballot;
that the failure to do so wouldn't nRcess-
sarily render the ballot Illegal but that
the ballot like any other written in
tstrument should lie examined anS'con4-
strued in the light of the attendant.
circumstances so as: to ascertain the,
Intention of the voter in connection.
ltherewith. b We conclude that
There was no error-in the Judgment of
1.-THE District court and it is. affirmed
Acknowledgement Pasture ca VS..
4 Sabine and East. Texas Tss Co.,, from
Jefferson, 1.-TWO cases.; c.. G. Ramirez
Tvs F. c. Barton, from DiNal; Samuel
Ray VS.. Chas Dillingham;. receiver,
ifroIn Harris: C. W. Wilkins VS.. Alvin
IW- wilkerson, from G8iNestont. Big,
Sandy Lumber Coz VS.. r., B. Kutseaan,,
lEcEl <as-dIu' lCSs
Tvs. Roscoe and H P. Upbpn,i executor
Ifrom Val Verde.
Affirmed in part and reversed and
iremanded in part-J.s M McAlhsteTc
vs. G.. w. Sanders ct AL, from Frfo.
II Reversed and renderede-C. o. Coffin.
IIexecutor, VS.. A. NJ LoomisS ct al. frora
Ell Paso.
/ Reversed and. remaUded-R0cke-
Williams & Langs VS. PMfirio Garcia
from Duval: Eulalio Cara vss. Tex
Mex. Ry. Co., from Nueces; Geo, IL
Taylor VS.. American Brewing, ASSN,
from Harris.
Motion overrulesi--C. L.. Di9rowity,
Tvs Henry Elmeudorf, FROM .Bexar, flu
lrehearing; F. r. Brown vs.. Enrique
IViscaya from Bexar, for rahearing
and to dismiss writ of error: City OF
San Antonio VS.: w. c. Peters, franl
'lBexar, for rehaaring; Johanna. Calhil
Tvs. Tex. Mex Ry Co.. fromn Nueaes
hfor' rshearing.
-k Motion ntasd-M.i &, & ID. BY CO
Tvs. Olive Hinss, frorr. Galveston, t.
d ihave mandate:fssued-.
I'll Motion submitted4-Susan Stant@r
ThSmpson VISA S. S.. THOMPSON. from
llBezar, to affium on Certificate
II Motion disgnissed--William HSsfin,
let al. VS.. City of San Antonio, frOn
Bexar, appelRe's motion for rehaarinl
iIof motion to- reform Judgment