Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1899-06-20
The G"v-rnorship Cont.st.

the express purpose 1T com idle ring
the ballots obi cte,l to by both parties
! during the introduction of the testi-
mony Of the relator Mcmillan. From
that until this morning the court had
under com liberation 594 ballots which
had been objected to by both the re-
lator and respondent. Three hun
dred and sixty FIVE Of these were oh
j cted to by Mcmillan and 219 of
them we're made in Sadler's interest.
Upon converting this Il. orning the
court anno"ceh through Justice Bon.
nitield that 1t was ready to give the re
suit Of the ubiections referred to-.
Judge Massey had the reeoris of the
court before him and by referring to
1t announced that rs the court had
been bnrdened with the conaidera-
ti,n OF the large rumber " ballots
presented that it hail not fonnd the
time or opportunity to prepare q
written opinion citing fully the
grounds for the decision. Justice
Massey nlso announced from the
bench that those b lllots introduced
ny Sadlera attorneys were ont of or
der as Il part Of tn. ir case had not
been considere ! by the court and
wonld lot be until the formulation OF
the respondents case.
The court SUSTAINED 40 Of the OBJ.
j Clone taken by McMillan's attor
neys and Ii ut the oDjertions taken
by Sadler. In connection with these
obi ':tIoDs, which were made ON the
grounds at di It:up uil b ;ng and identi
Tying marks upon the ballots, there
were several ballots vote ! for Nc.
MILAN that were r. jected by the
election officers that were counted by
the court as good and valid votes for
MCMILLAN. A few OLhrr errors were
found in the confederation Of the
number OF votes cast III certain pre-
ciDcta which affected the Iactual re-
suit Of the Gubernatorial election.
Considering SadleI's original ina
jority tO have been %, as announced
by the official re- ur ~, ana figuring
from the plumber m objections sus.
tanned by the court on behalf Of both
parties McMillan's majority over sad
Ter At the present time can be est
mated at Is.
The decision. rs matter Of course,
indicates that many OF the objections
taken by counsel for respective par
ties were in the opinion m the Court
most trivial aud unworthy nf se nOns
consideration. Tie Court has detin-
it'ly decided that the writing Of the
words &. es" or ~no" after the county
consolidation line upon TIT ballot is
distinguishing mark All Efficiently
bad to invali late the ballot. The
Court has also decided that other
writing upon tie ballot placed there
Intentionally by the voter shoul also
invalidate the ballot. In announcing
the oprhiOn of the Court Justice
Massey d, clare that the possible iu-
teDtioD Of tile voter had formed u
prominent fac1r ~ their delil~ra-
tiohs Where the intenti0u Of the
yuter seemed to be unquestioned as
D iis desire to v"te for pal ticular
Candidate. that ballot WIS not. re-
jcctd Oh account Of some y, ssible
accidental mistake in marking tile
b,llot. Where 'ad erasure was
shown upon tue bailr, clearly dis
figuring it; the Court decided it WIS
sufficiently distinguishing to invmi-
date the ballot.
1t was alsO Cle opinion OF the
Court that here two candidai ee for
pai ticular "fFice had been voted for
and the il structiou arly suggest ed
that ONLY one should be elected and