Elections—Contest—Insufficient Deposit of Ballots—Error not Shown.—Where it was stipulated that all of the ballots objected to by either party should be withdrawn from the clerk’s office by the party appealing, and be deposited with the clerk of this court, and the contestee appellant only deposited twenty-eight out of two hundred and fifty-one ballots rejected for the contestant, and no other ballots were deposited, no error is shown in counting or rejecting any of them.

Id.—Statement of Contest—Bestjlt of Canvass—Number of Legal Votes Cast—Issues'—Finding—Variance—Support of Judgment. —WThere the statement of contest showed the result of the canvass by the election board in counting 4,862 votes alleged to have been cast for the contestee, without alleging that they were legally cast, and also alleged misconduct of election boards in counting for the contestee ballots which were actually cast for the contestant, and further alleged that the contestant received 5,083 legal votes, and that the contestee received a less number of legal votes than the contestant at said election, and the „ease was tried without objection, upon the theory that the court was called upon to decide which of the parties actually received the greatest number of legal votes, a finding that the contestant received 4,004 legal votes and that the eontestee received 4,001 legal votes does not show a material or prejudicial variance from the statement as to the 4,862 votes, and is sufficient upon appeal to support a judgment for the contestant. [Beatty, C. J., dissenting.]

Id.—Illegal Ballots-—Distinguishing Marks.—The court did not err in rejecting all ballots as illegal which had crosses after the words “No nomination,” as containing a distinguishing mark. The fact that there were a large number of such ballots does not affect the rule; and the intent of the voter cannot be shown other than by what appears upon the face of the ballot.

Id.—Integrity op Ballots.—Where the pouches containing the ballots were shown to have come from the clerk’s office in the same condition as when they were received there, and there was no circumstance to raise a suspicion as to their integrity, an objection to the opening of the pouches by the court is without merit.

Id.—Purity op Election Law—Irrelevant Question.—The question whether contestant had complied with the Purity of Election Law, and as to the failure of the court to find thereupon, need not be considered. The matter is irrelevant to an election contest.