Richardson v. Jamison
| Decision Date | 01 January 1895 |
| Citation | 55 Kan. 16,39 P. 1050 |
| Parties | W. S. RICHARDSON v. JOHN A. JAMISON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Labette District Court.
THE opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
F. H. Atchinson, for plaintiff in error.
W. F. Schock, and Nelson Case, for defendant in error.
OPINION
W. S. Richardson and John A. Jamison were candidates for the office of trustee of Mound Valley 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, Jamison 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 clerk 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Board of Canvassers of City of Charleston
...are placed upon the ballot must be those designated by the statute, and made where it indicates they should be made." In Richardson v. Jamison, 55 Kan. 16, 39 P. 1050, read that the provisions of the statute known as the "Australian Ballot Law" concerning the marking of ballots are mandator......