Church v. Walker

Citations

• 10 S.D. 90
• 72 N.W. 101
• 1897 S.D. LEXIS 30

Syllabus

<p>1. Under Comp. Laws, § 1489, -requiring the notice of contest of an election. to office to set forth the facts and grounds on which contestant relies, a notice which alleged that the contestant “was duly elected” sufficiently stated that he possessed the legal qualifications, where such allegation was not denied except by the specific denial that he received a majority of the votes polled in the two precincts specified in the notice.</p> <p>2. Where a ticket has a cross in a circle at the head thereof, every name on such ticket not erased must be counted for that ticket, and the judges of election cannot count the ballot as a vote for any person or any other ticket on such ballot. Laws 1895, Chap. 85, § 3.</p> <p>3. Where a cross outside the circle on a ballot appeared to have been made intentionally with a pencil, while a cross within the circle was made with the official stamp, the judges should have presumed that the cross outside the circle was made as an identifying mark, and declined to count the ballot.</p> <p>4. Where an imperfect cross was made at the right of a certain name, and may have been made for the purpose of indicating a purpose to vote for the candidate for the same office on another ticket, without accomplishing such purpose, the ballot should have been counted, though the mark was intentionally made.</p> <p>5. Ballots defaced by ink blots should not have been rejected where the blotting seemed to have been accidental, and not intentional, and caused mainly by the use of poor paper for the ballots.</p> <p>6. The construction to be given the markings on official ballots is a question for the court, and not for the jury, and hence is properly brought before the supreme court by bill of exceptions. Puller, J., dissenting.</p>