A decision simply that one of the parties should pay the other a sum of money is sufficiently determinative of all items embraced in the submission. ( Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91 Cal. 611, 615-616 [28 P. 92]; Dugan v. Phillips, 77 Cal.App. 268, 278 [ 246 P. 566]; Rice v. Hassenpflug, 45 Ohio St. 377 [13 N.E. 655].) [11] To prove the arbitrators' failure to consider the item of damage from the delay in completion, respondents introduced the affidavit of the arbitrator whom they had appointed, Maurice Fleishman.
An award cannot be vacated for error not appearing upon the face of the award, and there is nothing on the face of the award to show that there was any prejudicial error as to the books. (Grayson v. Guild, 4 Cal. 123; Peachy v. Ritchie, 4 Cal. 205; Tyson v. Wells, 2 Cal. 130, 134; Fulmore v. McGeorge, 91 Cal. 614; Glass-Pendery Cons. Min. Co. v. Meyer Mining Co., 7 Colo. 51.) The proof must be clear and strong to warrant the setting aside of an award.
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 "Regular Prohibition Ticket," un derscored, printed at the head, on its face; [28 P. 92] 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.