That case is directly in point with the issue presented here. Under that authority, even though the campaign committee of the city of Shawnee had furnished its workers with money to use for the purpose of bribing voters (something that the record does not show), under the rule announced in that decision that fact would not invalidate the election, but would invalidate only the votes influenced thereby. With reference to election cases other than county seat cases, Mr. Justice McNeill, in Kimberlin v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County, 78 Okla. 143, 189 P. 361, stated the rule to be as follows: "When an elector is permitted to deposit his ballot, the presumption is in favor of the legality of the vote, and the burden is on the attacking party to show a lack of qualification in such elector.
In Cobb, as in the Goar case, the election had become final. The other cases relied upon by Bonham to sustain his contention that the burden was upon Baggett to show that a sufficient number of the illegal ballots cast were cast for Bonham to overcome the 9 vote plurality as shown on the face of the returns, are: Ledbetter v. Kimsey (1913), 38 Okla. 671, 134 P. 868; Dunagan v. Town of Red Rock (1916), 58 Okla. 218, 158 P. 1170; Reid v. City of Muskogee (1929), 137 Okla. 44, 278 P. 339; Toohey v. Town of Canton (1936), 177 Okla. 426, 60 P.2d 729; Kimberlin v. Board of County Com'rs of Garvin County (1920), 78 Okla. 143, 189 P. 361; Dominic v. Davis (1953), Okla., 262 P.2d 143; and Groves v. Board of County Com'rs, Washita County (1967), Okla., 429 P.2d 994. Each of the above cases, except Dominic v. Davis, involved actions filed in the district court to enjoin the issuance of certain bonds and to declare the elections void.
"It has been repeatedly held in this state that when an elector is permitted to deposit his ballot, the presumption is in favor of the legality of the vote. And where the validity (invalidity) of elections is alleged on account of illegal voting, those seeking to set aside the result, as declared by the election officials, have the burden of proof, not only that illegal votes were cast in sufficient number to change the result, but must show by whom and for whom or for what issue such votes were cast. Kimberlin v. Board of County Com'rs, 78 Okla. 143, 189 P. 361; Goar v. Brown, 82 Okla. 227, 200 P. 156; Dunagan v. [Town of] Red Rock, 58 Okla. 218, 158 P. 1170; Cobb v. Berry, 67 Okla. 29, 168 P. 46. No attempt was made in this case to show how any of the persons voted who are alleged to have been illegal voters. On the contrary, from the evidence and statements in appellants' brief, it might be inferred that the majority of the alleged illegal voters voted against the incorporation.
Hence, the objection to the offered proof as not being within the issues and irrelevant, was not well taken. Kimberlin v. Board of Commissioners, 78 Okl. 143, 189 P. 361; Rideout v. City of Los Angeles, 185 Cal. 426, 197 P. 74. The case, therefore, is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to hear all testimony offered or which may be offered by either side with regard to any claimed illegal votes and how each voter alleged to be disqualified voted, and make the necessary adjustment in determining whether or not there were sufficient legal votes cast to authorize the issuing of the bonds.
Plaintiffs contend that when their evidence was closed, sufficient evidence had been introduced to shift the burden at least on the defendants to purge the election of illegality and corruption. In Kimerlin et al. v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin Co., 78 Okla. 142, 189 P. 361, the court held: "Where it is sought to review the validity of an election on the ground of illegal voting, those seeking to overcome the result as declared by the election officers have the burden of proving, not only that illegal votes were cast in sufficient number to change the result, but by whom and for whom, or for what issue or question submitted, such votes were cast."
"2. Where it is sought to review the validity of an election on the ground of illegal voting, those seeking to overcome the result as declared by the election officers have the burden of proving, not only that illegal votes were cast in sufficient number to change the result, but by whom and for whom, or for what issue or question submitted, such votes were cast." See, also, Harris v. Palmer, 25 Okla. 770, 108 P. 385; Snyder v. Blake, 35 Okla. 294, 129 P. 34; Ledbetter v. Kimsey, 38 Okla. 671, 134 P. 868; Storm v. Parman, 43 Okla. 495, 143 P. 38; Kimberlin v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County, 78 Okla. 143, 189 P. 361; and Goar v. Brown, 82 Okla. 227, 200 P. 156. Also, in Murray v. McGehee, 121 Okla. 248, 249 P. 700, it was held:
It has been repeatedly held in this state that when an elector is permitted to deposit his ballot, the presumption is in favor of the legality of the vote. And where the validity of elections is alleged on account of illegal voting, those seeking to set aside the result, as declared by the election officials, have the burden of proof, not only that illegal votes were cast in sufficient number to change the result, but must show by whom and for whom, or for what issue, such votes were cast. Kimberlin v. Board of County Com'rs, 78 Okla. 143, 189 P. 361; Goar v. Brown, 82 Okla. 227, 200 P. 156; Dunagan v. Red Rock, 58 Okla. 218, 158 P. 1170; Cobb v. Berry, 67 Okla. 29, 168 P. 46. No attempt was made in this case to show how any of the persons voted who are alleged to have been illegal voters.
The fact that disqualified voters are permitted to participate in an election in this state is not sufficient to void such election, where it is possible to ascertain the true vote. Kimberlin et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Garvin County, 78 Okla. 143, 189 P. 361. It is not error, however, for the trial court to hold an election void where it is impossible to separate the valid from the invalid votes, and where the correct result is impossible of determination. Martin v. McGarr, 27 Okla. 653, 117 P. 323: Incorporated Town of Ryan v. Town of Waurika, 29 Okla. 655, 118 P. 220; Ram pendahl v. Crump, 24 Okla. 873, 105 P. 201.
"The mere fact that an inconsiderable number of persons disqualified to vote at a bond election were permitted to participate therein is not sufficient to avoid such election, where it is possible to ascertain the true vote, and the proposition carried by the requisite number of votes." Kimberlin et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 78 Okla. 143, 189 P. 361; Martin v. McGarr, 27 Okla. 653, 117 P. 323. Inasmuch as no evidence was introduced attempting to show how many unregistered voters were permitted to vote, or to prove whether said voters were for or against the bonds, under the authorities above cited, the election will not be held invalid because some unqualified voters voted.