Coffey

This is an election The parties were opposing candidates for the officii of superintendent of schools in the countySutter.

The sole question here ísywíi ether the court ruled correctly in counting for contestant forty-two votes cast for him upon the prohibition ticket; and as they were alike, one ruling will dispose of them all. If contestant was entitled to them, he was elected; if not, the respondent rightfully holds the certificate.

It was admitted that the prohibition party did not adopt a vignette or caption, or file one in Sutter County, and neither of the tickets had the name or number of the precinct or district in which the same was to have been or might be voted.

Thirty-nine ballots each contained the words “ Reg *136 ular Prohibition Ticket,” underscored, printed at the head, on its face; the other three had the same heading, with the addition of two stars over the words.

It is contended that these ballots should be rejected because they do not conform to the provisions of the Political Code upon the subject.

In 1878 was passed what is called the vignette law, expressly allowing a heading upon the face of ballots. Prior to that time, it is contended, no heading…