Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-05-29
Continued from First PaSe.)

ton and counted for him by the court
over the objection of the Respondent
are clearly illegal and void for the
reason that the persons who voted
said ballots attempted tc vote for the
township officers of the townships of
Eureka aud Palisade by placing
crosses opposite the names of the can
didates of their choice on said bal
lots and under the rulings heretofore
made said ballots should not have
been counted. Exhibits A, c, d,
and F being ballots cast in said pre-
cinct at said election for the appellant
and counted by the court for him
owe the objection of the respondent,
are legal ballots, no marks or words
appearing thereon that would affect
their validity under our law.
Exhibits IS, FL, p, 20, IS and 80
are ballots cast in Eureka precinct
No. 2 for the respondent Sweeney.
each of which the court refused to
count for said respondent owe his
objection. Said Exhibit No. Is was
correctly rejected by the court for the
reason that the lperson voting the
same made two distinct crosses there
on Immediately under the names of
William ]. Bryan and Thomas E.
Watson. Exhibit No. FL was also
properly rejected by the court for the
reason that opposite the name of
Benjamin F. Leete, a candidate for
Presidential Elector, there had been
placed marks of impossible descrip-
ton that could not be called a cross.
Said Exhibit No. 26 was also prop-
erly rejected by the court notwith-
standing the objection of the respond
ent, for the reason that the person
casting said ballot placed in the
square opposite the name of the res
pondent marks with a pencil that
more nearly resemble a spider than
anything else. No other marks were
made upon this ballot. Said Exh bit
No. % was also properly rejected by
the court for the reason that the
party voting the same had indiscrirn-
lnately placed crosses with a pencil
on various parts thereof; he also had
attempted to vote for the township
officers of Eureka and Palisade town.
ships. Exhibit No. 90 aforesaid was
also properly rejected by the court for
the reason that the person voting the
same had placed crosses immediately
beneath the names of Bryan and
Sewall thereon. Said Exhibit No. p
should have been counted bv the
court for the respondent as a careful
examination thereof fails to disclose
any markings thereon not authorized
by law. Exhibits Ia, II, "a. 20, Al,
81, 80, SO and 40 are ballots vote in
said last named precinct for the res
pondent and counted by the court
owe the objection of the appellant.
These ballots are all legal and valid
nothing appearing thereon prohibited
by the law.
Exhibits %, rs, 20 and "a are bal
lots cast in said precinct at said cleo
ton for the respondent and counted
for him by the court over the obiec-
ton OF the appellant. This action of
the court cannot he sustained. as
eachIof said ballots bears crosses made
by the voter thereof after the names
OF the candidates for township offices
IN Eureka and Palisade townships,
and tor that reason is void. Exhibit |
Fl is a ballot cast also at said pre-
c1nct tor the respondent and counted
tor him by the court over the obiec-
ton OF the said appellant. This bal
lot nus also be held to be void as it
bears a perpendicular marx made bv
a lead pencil opposite the nan.e of
John Pardy, a candidate for County !
Surveyor. Exhibits N, o, 90, X
n Y are ballots cast at said last
named precinct for the appellant and
rejected by the COURT in it's coun. over
the objection of, said appellant. Said
hAn'oit N was properly rejected as
there is appearing thereon a cross
immediately beneath the name of
William j. Bryan. Said Exhibit O
was also properly rejected bv the
court as thereupon are crosses i'm
mediately beneath the names of Will