They are: Britten v. Williams, 293 S.W .2d 853 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1956, error ref. n.r.e.); Bullington v. Lear, 230 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso, 1950, no writ); Pollard v. Snodgrass, 203 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1947, error dism.); Powell v. Bond, 150 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1941, no writ); and Smith v. Breedlove, 399 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1966, no writ). Each of these cases was decided before the Legislature enacted the amendment to § 35 of Art. 666, Penal Code, quoted above. There being nothing ambiguous or uncertain about the literal meaning of the amendatory act, we follow the rationale of Justice Hamilton in Smith v. Counts, supra (282 S.W.2d at 424), '(a)lthough the result leads to invalidation of a local option election for reasons which in our view are highly technical.'

'This entire Act shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the State for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, temperance, and safety of the people of the State, and all its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of that purpose.' Such provisions and admonitions have been consistently followed by our courts as is shown in the following cases: Britten v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W.2d 853; Bullington v. Lear, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W.2d 290; Pollard v. Snodgrass, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 641; Leggett v. Cochran, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 729; Powell v. Bond, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.2d 337; Flowers v. Shearer, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 1049. The object or purpose in constructing any statute is to ascertain from the language used in the statute the intention of the Legislature.

This Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and there held the local option election valid in spite of alleged irregularities. The Court sustained the validity of a local option election in the case of Powell v. Bond, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.2d 337, 341. After discussing at length the law governing such an election, the facts there presented and the contentions made by all parties, the Court then said: "`But when it is shown that the irregularities of the officers have in no manner changed the result of the election, or its fair and honest character, the acknowledged rule is to count the returns or the ballots, as the case may demand, in the same way as if the directory provisions of the statute had been rigidly pursued.' Fowler v. State, 68 Tex. 30, 3 S.W. 255, point page 257; Bass v. Lawrence, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W. 207, point page 210."

It is true that the notice itself is not a verbatim copy of the order of the court but such notice contains a complete statement of the facts relative to the forthcoming election and also a copy of the order as passed by the Commissioners' Court. Under the authority of Powell v. Bond, Tex. Civ. App. 150 S.W.2d 337, we hold that such order is substantially quoted in the notice and that a substantial copy of the order was therefore posted in the notice. We think the case of Coffee v. Lieb, Tex. Civ. App. 107 S.W.2d 406, is not in support of appellants' position on this point.