Case Name: W. S. Richardson v. John A. Jamison
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1895-01
Citations: 55 Kan. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. S. Richardson v. John A. Jamison.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 16–17

Head Matter:
W. S. Richardson v. John A. Jamison.
1. Ballots, Marking and Counting — Mandatory Provisions. The provisions of §§22 and 25, chapter 78, Laws of 1893, commonly known as the “Australian-ballot law,” concerning the marking and counting of ballots, are mandatory, and must be substantially complied with by the voter in order to have his vote counted.
2. Case, Followed. The case of Taylor v. Bleakley, just decided, followed.
Error from Labette District Court.
The opinion states the case.
F. 11. Atchinson, for plaintiff in error.
W. F. SchocJc, and Nelson Case, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J. :
W. S. Richardson and John A. Jamison were candidates for the office of trustee of Mound Yalley township, in Labette county, prior to the election of 1893. These candidates were voted for at the election. After the election the canvassing board of the county declared John A. Jamison elected. Richardson contested the election. The contest court declared Richardson elected. On January 13, 1894, J amison commenced an action in the district court to reverse the decision of the contest court. Such proceedings were had in that action that the court found the contest court had committed error, set aside its action, and, upon the request of the parties, held the matter for trial. The action being called for trial, the county cleric was called as a witness, and produced the ballots cast at the election in dispute. From the evidence, the court found John A. Jamison had received 168 legal votes, and W. S. Richardson 167 legal votes, and that John A. Jamison had been elected to the office of trustee of said township. Judgment was entered accordingly. Richardson excepted, and brings the case here.
The trial court ruled that the ballots could not be counted if marked other than the way prescribed by chapter 78, Laws of 1893, and therefore, upon the objection of Jamison, refused to count certain votes cast for Richardson that were not properly marked in the designated square or place by the voters with a cross (X) • Within the authority of Taylor v. Bleakley, just decided by this court, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.