Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-09-27

certain number of ballots, amounting in
the aggregate to several hundred, which
contained distinguishing and identifying
marks, such as to render them void, were
cast and counted for the Respondent. By
the answer it is likewise alleged that GER
tain number of legal ballots in certain
p~recints were cast for Respondent but
not counted for him, and that in certain
precincts and counties IA great number of
illegal and void ballots by reason of dis
tinguishing and identifying mark made
thereon were cast and counted for the Re
lator. In support of these allegations, re
s~pectively, the parties offered i'll evidence
the ballots. In nearly every instance
when the ballots were offered from a
county or precinct an objection to their
Introduction was made by the
other party, IN several grounds. The
ballots were produced in Court by the
present County Clerks, whose testimony
is clearly sufficient to show that the bal
lots were properly cared for after coming
into their possession, but in most cases
the ballots were shown to have been in
the custody Of other officers before being
received by the Clerks. These other Of
ficers were not present and their testi-
mony WAS not taken. The ballots were
admitted under the objection, the court
reserving the consideration Of the Objec-
tions, until it's examination Of the ballots
themselves, the official returns of the IN
spectOrs. and the ballots returned ar re
jectcl by them. From such examination
it clearly appears that there was no
marking of, or tampering with any OF
thu ballots after leaving the hands Of the
voters, that impesches their validity. All
Of the objections to the introduction OF
the ballots in evidence are overruled.
The Ballots. The Relator and the Re
spondent by their respective counsel cN-
aminCd all the ballots cast in the State in
open court, except from four precincts il
which the official returns show that sixty
votes were east for Rclator and one hun
bred for the Respondent, and each party
objected to certain ballots on the aIlcgc'
grounds that they contained distinguish
ing and identifying marks, and Gy reasoi
thcrcufWerovoid and should not have beer
counted by the inspector, and should no.
bo counted 10y the Court. The Relation
objected to 5G4 ballots east for Respond.
cnt aud the Respondent objected to 80
ballots cast for the RcIator. There wer.
six thousand and eighteen ballots cas-
for the TWO candidates to which no obiec
ton was made 10y either party; Of thes,
ballots the Rclator received two thou
sand NINA b,IpIra1 ayl o,-o1+y-uiDaa II
the Respondent. three thousand ant
thirty-nine. OF the ballots cast for Re
spoudcnt and counted for him 10y the In
spectors to which the RcIator objected OIL
the ground that they contained illegal
identifying and distinguishing marks
F the Court rejected one hundred anl
F thirty-tive, upon the grounds specified
Of the ballots cast for Rrlator and counte,
for him by the Inspectors to which tn
=, Respondent objected on the same ground
not including the so-called red line bal
= lots. the Court rejected one hundred anC
nineteen. DedUcting the onc hundre,
!, and t~hirty-tivc ballots from throc thou
sand, five hundred and seventy c0unte
!, for Respondent as shown by the otlicia
; returns leaves him three thousand, foU'
} hundred and thirty-tiv' votes. Deduct
b. ing the one hundred an nineteen bal
I lots from three thousand. five hun
t drcd and forty-cight counted for the RI
. lator as shown by said returns leave
:. him three thousand. four hundred an
iocted in the aggregate five legal hallo'