Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1899-06-23

cd on last Monday it did so for
the express purpose OF conside ring
the ballots objected to by both parties
during the introduction OF the testi.
mony OF the relator Mcmillan. From
that until this morning the court had
under consideration 5S4 ballots which
had been objected to by both the re-
lator and respondent. Three hun
bred and ~siIty.ive o. these were OBJ
iected to by Mcmillan and 2l9 Of
them gere made in Sadler's interest.
Upon convening this morning the
court annouced through Justice Bon
nitield that il was ready to give the re.
suit OF the objections referred to.
Judge Massey had the records OF the
court before him and by referring to
it announced that as the court had
been burdened with the considera-
ton OF the large number Of ballots
presented that it had not found the
time or opportunity TO prepare a
written opinion citing fully the
grounds for the decision. Justice
Massey also announced from the
beach that those ballots introduced
by Sadler's attorneys were ont OF or
der rs a part OF their case had not
been considered by the court and
would not be until the termination Of
the respondents case.
The court sustained 80 OF the OBJ
iections taken by McMillan's attor-
neys and l3 OF the objections taken
by Sadler. In connection with these
objections, which were made on the
grounds OF distinguishing and identi.
flying marks upon the ballots, there
were several ballots voted for Nc.
MILAN that we're rejected by the
election officers that were counted by
the court as good and valid votes for
Mcmillan. A. few other errors were
found i'll the consideration OF the
number OF votes cast III certain pre-
cincts which affected the %iactual re.
suit OF the Gubernatorial election.
Considering Sadler's original ma
iority to have been %, as announced
by the official returns, and figuring
from the number OF objections sus-
tanned by the court on behalf of both
parties McMillan's majority over Sad
Ter at the present time car be esti.
mated at l6.
The decision, as a matter Of course,
indicates that many OF tho objections
taken by counsel for respective par
ties were in the opinion OF the Court
most trivial and unworthy OF serious
consideration. The Court has detiu-
itely decided that the writing Of the
words yes or @no" after the county
consolidation line upon the ballot is
a distinguishing mark sufficiently
bad to inralidate the ballot. The
Court has also decided that other
writing upon the ballot placed there
Intentionally by the voter should also
iDyalidate the ballot. In announcing
the opinion OF the Court Justice
Massey declared that the possible in
tentioD Of the voter had formed q
prominent factor in their delibera-
tons. Where the intention OF the
voter seemed to be unquestioned as
TO his desire to vote for a particular
candidate, that ballot was not re-
jected on account OF some possible
accidental mistake in marking the
ballot. Where a bad erasure was
shown upon the ballot. clearly dis.
figuring it, the Court decided il was
sufficiently distinguishing to inyali.
date the ballot.
1t was also ibe opinion OF the
Court that where two candidates for
a particular Office had been voted for
and the instruction clearly suggested
that only one should be elected and
voted for. tina. a ros placed opposite
the name ~ two candidates Wac not
a distinguishing mark and would
not %inyalidaie the ballot.
After the opinion wac announced
County Clerk LOTUS Of Lyon county
and the attorney for Sadler opened
tbe respoudent's case.
The balance ri the day was taken
up with the inspection. by the sttor.
torney, Of ballots which were offered
10y counsel for Ssdlcr from different,
counties OF the State. The objec-
tons were not 50 numerous as upon
former occasions, for the opinion OF
The Court just rendered was a guide
as 10 what would most likely prove a
setious objection. However. a few
ballots, apparently invalid. we're
found 10y boil, parties.-Carson News.