*1 jury words, a take-nothing out resulted the school district was entitled to judgment against appellant. The judgment question have the whether “ * ** parties having recites finally is valid in the determined courts ‘ready,’ jury having validity announced and no trial de novo. No demanded, the matters rulings of fact as findings accorded well as of law were submitted to the through court administrative board. State ** *» Cortez, State Board Morticians Tex.
Appellant presents points two of error for our He consideration. asserts The of the trial court is af- system” because the “school was a proceedings,
the administrative the order Education State Board of is final and, therefore, appellee the trial court jurisdiction.
did not have He con- also judicial inquiry,
tends that allowed case,
all in this is limited to under review rule;
the substantial evidence and that the reversing trial erred court decisions JORDAN, Appellant, J. B. and board educa- commissioner tion because there is no evidence that WESTBROOK, Appellee. W. W. arbitrarily fraudulently acted or abused their discretion. Texas. Court Civil that the court did We hold Antonio. that the jurisdiction
have substantial July application rule has no in this case. question appellant of whether
discharged for cause is in the good record,
case. Under school district
has never contended was dis- good cause, he
charged for had a valid Rather, throughout contro-
contract. this
versy, consistently main- district has that the
tained contract invalid. issue case is thus resolved into
sole question Board of law. The State does not have final or conclu-
Education “a question. discretion on that It is
sive parties
judicial question have finally determined right
courts, upon facts as- a state of legal demand be jury,
certained Angeles Heights In
made therefor.” Los Whitehead, District v.
dependent School ref.)
(Tex.Civ.App.,
895, 896; Independent School Birdville Deen, 1940) (Tex.Civ.App.,
District v. 680, 683-684, affirmed 138 (1942). In other *2 County, in Atascosa election 5, 1968,
Texas, Westbrook on November name the Democratic nominee his was the official ballot the Demo- appeared on indepen- were five cratic column. There and, according the of- dent candidates returns, election received ficial Westbrook 87, Young Russell Jordan face Rogers Martin On the canvassing these returns the board declared to the be elected office of Westbrook County No. of Precinct Commissioner County, of Atascosa Texas. Several wit- placed nesses were on the witness stand reading served as clerks in Precinct who 16, voting box Pre- within Commissioners 2, and cinct No. each testified that he ballots; read out a she number of were “a number of ballots” where placed an “X” the head of one political party columns and also placed an opposite “X” the name B. of J. Jordan; that “these ballots”1 not candidate, keeping for either from the judge instructions precinct. election These witnesses further testified that there awere sufficient num- Burns, Berry, Lewis E. Jr., Michael Aus- marked, ber of these ballots that if so tin, Gibson, Antonio, Jerry ap- A. had been counted for it would have Jordan pellant. changed the result of the election. The Franklin, Franklin & Arnold Frank- W. go Court did into boxes and lin, Jourdanton, appellee. check the ballots because the Court was of opinion that these properly not counted for KLINGEMAN, candidate. either Justice. The court filed following conclusions Appellant, contest. is an election This J. of law: appellee, the election of Jordan, contests
B. Westbrook, County Com- W.W. “I conclude when voter 2, Atascosa No. of Precinct missioner he, un- column ‘X’ at of a Texas, that a num- County, grounds law, an intention to der the evidences change sufficient of lawful ber ap- name for each candidate whose vote contes- favor of the result election pears in when by the of- not counted election tant were opposite places an ‘X’ the name have been counted ficials and should independent in another col- sitting without him. The district court he had an intention to also umn evidenced the contest judgment denying jury candidate, vote for decreeing contestee filed he has evidenced an intention thus such election. the winner of same two candidates of- vote for fice, fact and his vote cannot be counted for findings of trial court made either. may as follows: be summarized finding number of as to the these There ballots. “W. W. ‘Bill’ Westbrook properly- —San Antonio writ dism’d); Solis v. County declared elected Martinez, Commissioner (Tex.Civ.App.— County, Precinct No. Atascosa dism’d). San Antonio I in his decide this contest favor.” In an bur Appellant point of asserts one error: *3 den is the prove on contestant to allege and that holding “The District Court erred in either that a different result would have places when a voter an ‘X’ aof by been reached counting counting or not party oppo- an ‘X’ column and also votes, specified irregularities or that in the candidate site name of the conduct of an such as to election were in he has another column indicated in- impossible render it the to determine will of the indi- tent to vote for both majority the the participating. of voters vidually the marked the candidate for City La Rodriguez, of v. 415 Grulla same office marked 1967, (Tex.Civ.App. 701 writ Antonio — San his vote be counted and therefore cannot e.); Quisenberry, ref’d n. r. v. Brandon either; is for because the voter’s intent (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo clearly vote for the candidate individual- to ; Hall, writ) 167 no Roberts v. S.W. applicable under the law ly marked and 2d no (Tex.Civ.App. 621 — Amarillo control the intent should such case voter’s Holland, writ); Pippin 146 266 v. the the counting ballot.” of (Tex.Civ.App. writ); Worth no — Fort of the Election pertinent articles Pittman, (Tex.Civ. Moore v. 280 873 S.W. Ann. herein are Vernon’s Code involved App. no writ); Paso — El Tex.Jur. 6.06, forth the which sets meth- art. Civ.St. 2d, Elections, general rule uni 179. The 8.21, ballots, marking of art. od versally followed is that when election a vote where
provides voiding for the rejected ficials have voter upon a persons are (2) or more ballot “two presumed illegal such is to be an voter office.” the same proof and the on the burden of is party wishing to have the ballot counted any us state- This case before without satisfactory proof show clear and facts; none of the ballot boxes ment of legally qualified such voter was a Court, and brought up to this were involved Ramirez, every respect. v. Guerra stipula- exhibits or the contains no record Civ.App., 351 tions. the up Under the us policy the law record before is the It be an election in the court must af results hold declared proof clear and firmed. The was on except burden of where cases ballots an erroneous result. the contestant to show the convincing Peters, (Tex.Civ. rejected election officials were v. 260 S.W. Johnston votes, dism’d). As lawful that such votes should have writ App. Antonio — San contestant, rule, presumed are been and that con judges counted has testant duty, and this Court would have been winner their have done had an election votes been counted. Here there that in repeatedly held heavy finding by to how burden is no trial court as has the the contestant many, any, rejected. the elec overcoming facts, duty prop discharged their absence of statement of we officials tion many a ballot. rejecting cannot determine how receiving or erly in any, Pena, (Tex.Civ. were not counted for contestant 406 S.W.2d v. Guerra him, 1966, writ); Guerra which should Antonio App. — San record us Ramirez, (Tex.Civ.App. before does es 364 S.W.2d dism’d); tablish the contestant Guerra received more Antonio —San lawful than Ramirez, (Tex.Civ.App. votes contestee. af- trial court is judgment of the CADENA, (concurring). Justice that, ground solely affirm
I would question, respect to the ballots basis, guess- judicial than
there is no other
work, intention of ascertaining voters involved failed Since
voters. any one of the preference
indicate candidates, prop- their
erly disregarded. McGUIRE, Appellant,
L. L. al., Appellees. ux.,
Walter ROGERS et et
Court of Civil of Texas.
Waco.
June McGuire, pro se. L. L. pro
L. D. Rogers, se.
OPINION McDONALD, Chief Justice. appeal by plaintiff
This is an McGuire partially judgment, from adverse damages. suit rent and Rogers sued Plaintiff McGuire Walter Viola, Stanley L. and wife D. (brother nephew Walter) Rogers, Plaintiff damages. rent and $399.14 alleged he acres of rented house and 30 Rogers at land to Viola Walter and monthly $200; that Walter rental of for them- Rogers Viola agents representatives selves “and Stanley Rogers”; and L. D. Rogers