Sweeney v. Hjul
| Decision Date | 22 June 1897 |
| Docket Number | 1,493 |
| Citation | 49 P. 169,23 Nev. 409 |
| Parties | SWEENEY v. HJUL. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
The appellant urges that a rehearing be granted in this action for the reason that this court has assumed that there are only two civil townships in Eureka county, when in fact there are four, and that, in the count made by this court, ballots were counted for respondent upon which crosses were made opposite the names of wrong township officers, other than those indicated in the opinion. The record in the case falls to disclose other townships than Eureka and Palisade. The ballots in all the precincts have printed thereon the names of the township officers for Eureka and Palisade townships only. If it is, then, a fact that there are two other townships, to wit, Ruby Hill township and Beowawe township then the count made by this court of the contested ballots should be slightly changed. This court counted for the appellant ballots cast in Ruby Hill precinct, marked Exhibits VN, NN, TT, RR, and PP, each of which ballots was marked with a cross opposite the names of the candidates for township officers of either Eureka or Palisade township. These ballots, under the showing made by the petition, should have been rejected by this court. In the same precinct we counted one vote, marked Exhibit 45, for the respondent, which, for the reason indicated, should also have been rejected. Only two ballots were brought up to this court under the stipulation which were cast at Mineral Hill precinct No. 7 and neither of said ballots was cast for any township officer. Of the two ballots before the court, cast in Keystone precinct No. 11, both of which were voted and counted for Hjul, the one marked Exhibit PPP was also voted for the township officers of Eureka township, and the one marked Exhibit OOO was not voted for any township officer. Ballots marked Exhibits LLL and MMM, cast in Diamond precinct No. 10, were counted by the court for appellant, and each of said ballots was cast for the township officers of Eureka township. The ballot marked Exhibit NNN, cast in said precinct, and counted in this court for the appellant, was voted for the township officers of both Eureka and Palisade townships, and should, for the reason above given, be rejected. Ballot marked Exhibit 70, and voted in said precinct for the respondent, was also voted for the township officers of Eureka township. Ballots marked Exhibits 71, 72 73, and 74 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. McMillan v. Sadler
...it was doubtless considered, would terminate the proceeding, under a rule adopted in the Sweeney-Hjul Case, 23 Nev. 409, 48 P. 1036, and 49 P. 169. The opinion and rulings of the court that question were given as follows: "The respondent has set up in his answer, as an affirmative defense, ......