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

to detach the stub bearing the num-
Der of the ballot destroying it's Sc
reCy, but whether such failure shall
render the ballot void and theeeby
disfranchise the voter, is a new and
important question.
The case of Buckner VS.. Lynip. Al
Pac. Rep. 762, is cited by the appel
liant as being directly in point ard
decisive of this question. In that
case the election officers failed to re-
move the perforated strip on the right
OF each ballot. 1t was not charged in
that case that the failure of the cleo
ton officers in this matter was fraud
ulent Or Intentional. Section 20,
above cited, does not expressly direct
that a ballot upon which this stub
has been left shall not be counted.
The law required the stub to be at
tached to the ballot when printed and
1t also lnferentia!ly required that the
'NAAoN o1Aohlu OS dSldluSd l.O1H the
stub before it was delivered to the
voter. In Buckner VS.. Lynip, P R
the court say, that a study of this
statute leaves nc doubt that its Dur
pose IS to secure a fair expression of
the will of the electors of the State.
by secret ballot, uninauenced BY brlb-
cry, corruption Oh fraud: this being
the object of the law, 1t should be so
construed as to render the evil against
which its provisions are directed. and
at the same time not to disfranchise
the voter further than is necessary 10
obtain that object.
The case at bar is clearly distinguish
able from the case of Buckner VS. L>nip.
Supra, In that case all the ballots cast
in Rebel Creek precinct were so cast
without fist having the strip detached by
the accidental blunoe4 of the election
officers a I'd without the knowledge OF the
voters. 1t was shown that not a voter
knew that the law was not being com
piled with, and a fair inference from the
until after the polls had closed. Consid-
ering the fact with the provisions of the
law bearing upon the matter, the court
correctly held there was a reason in the
law itself for not holding those ballots
VOID, ana upon that point the court say
eff a citizen votes a ballot not bearing the
water mark, he is somewhat in fault him
self x On the other hand. the
slip is to be removed by the inspector
after the ticket is surrendered to him and
with this the voter has nothing to do; and
very often, as in this case, it might be
left on the ballot by oversight or acct
dent.
1t was the duty of the election officers
to deliver to the %elector a proper ballot
one bearing the water mark with the
strip bearing the number attached to the
right thereof, detached from the stub. 1t
was equally the duty of the voter to know
the stub was detached, that the ballot bore
the water mark and had attached thereto
the strip on the right hand side
bearing the number. He had the means
of Knowing these facts and should be
held to exercise some intelligence and
some diligence in casting his ballot.
Where he blindly accepts a ballot from an
election offcer bearing marks that will
destroy the secrecy of the ballot, he
should be held to know that fact. 1t will
not do to cast all responsibility upon the
officer except in those matters where the
officer has the exclusive right to act and
where his acting would destroy the val
idity of the ballot.
The case of Buckner vs.. Lyrip is thus
distinguished from the case at bar ard
was decided upon the peculiar facts sur
rounding it. We must hold, therefore,,
that the court erred in counting the bal
lots voted in Eureka precinct No. , hav-
ing the stubs attached.
1t appears from the record that the
appellant received It3 votes tor said
office to which no objections were made.
to which add the number allowed bv this
court under the stipulations and it will
give him a total vote of 131.
1t also appears rom the record that the
respondent received qS votes to which no
objections were made, to which add the
number found under the stipulations and
1t will give him a total vote of RS. !
The p IOtes cast in Eureka precinct No
, with the stub attached and rejected by
this court, are not considered in the aocve
count. If considered they would not
change the result
The jugdment will, therefore. be af-
firmed.