consequences were not intended and to adopt a construction which shall promote the ends of justice and avoid the absurdity. 2. Under the provisions of sec. 16, art. 4, ch. 31, F. 395, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1907-1908, conferring on the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies arising in county seat contests, the Supreme Court has inherent authority to appoint a referee with power to hear the case and report the evidence with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, the report thus made to be given every reasonable presumption of being correct. 3. Where the electors at a county seat election, after having passed the challengers and before being given a ballot, permitted the clerks to fill out a statutory form of affidavit which they signed and delivered to the election commissioners with the intent of having the same uttered and published as true and on which they received the blank ballots, the said affidavit will be deemed complete in all particulars and the ballots which the electors so received, prepared and cast will not be rejected for the reason that the officers failed to require the electors to raise their hands and go through the form of taking the oath or for the reason that the entire contents of the affidavits were not re-stated to the electors on the occasions when the officer formally swore them. 4. Irregularities shown to have occurred on the holding of an election which do not appear to have affected the final result, nor to have cast substantial doubt thereon, will be deemed immaterial. (Syllabus by the Court.) Ad V. Coppedge, W. H. Kornegay, Attorneys for Plaintiff. Wm. P. Thompson, Bailey & Wyand, and Owen & Stone, Attorneys for Defendants. Opinion of the Court by KANE, J. FIRST BANK OF HOFFMAN, Plaintiff in Error. VS. HENRY HARRISON, Defendant in Error. No. 971. ERROR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MUS- Malcolm E. Rosser, Trial Judge. 1. The issue was as to whether H. executed a certain mortgage to F. Bank. H. admitted receiving a certain sum, or sums of money on or about that time, but contended that no part thereof was intended to be secured by such mortgage. Held: That it was permissible on cross-examination of the officers of F. Bank to bring out facts tending to show that independent of said mortgage such sums of money loaned to H. and repaid by him to said bank. 2. Neither any incompetent evidence having been received, nor any competent evidence having been rejected, and the cause having been submitted to the jury under proper instructions, there being a conflict in the evidence the verdict in favor of H. will not be disturbed on review in this court. (Syllabus by the Court.) Powell & Parks, on brief for Plaintiff in Error. OPINION OF THE COURT BY WILLIAMS, J.: This is an action in replevin commenced by the plaintiff in error as plaintiff in the United States court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Muskogee against the defendant in error as defendant, for the recovery of two horses and certain corn and cotton. At the time of the erection of the state said cause was transferred to the district court of Muskogee county. The plaintiff claims the right to the possession of said chattels by virtue of a certain mortgage. The defendant denied its execution. The issues were submitted to the jury under proper instructions and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. Neither was any exception saved, nor is any complaint made in this court as to the instructions to the jury in the trial court. Plaintiff in error complains of certain evidence brought out on the cross-examination of its witnesses, who were officers of the plaintiff bank, by counsel for the defendant. These objections seem to be without merit. The question at issue was whether the mortgage upon which the action was based was executed by the defendani. If it was, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to prevail, otherwise the verdict 'should be for the defendant. The defendant admitted that he had borrowed certain sums of money from the plaintiff. Plaintiff's theory was that such sums of money were a part of the consideration of the mortgage. On cross-examination evidence was brought out to show where defendant had paid plaintiff's officers certain sums of money, evidently on the theory that this transaction accorded with defendant's theory. The case seems to have been fairly tried under proper instructions. There was substantial evidence upon which the jury could find a verdict in favor of the defendant. Such being the case the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. All the justices concur. BOYNTON LAND, MINING & INVESTMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error. VS. CHARLES F. RUNYAN, Defendant in Error. No. 2348. MOTION TO DISMISS OVERRULED. John H. King, Trial Judge. The motion for new trial was overruled on October 4th, 1910, and the plaintiff in error allowed sixty days in which to prepare and serve a case-made. On November 26th, 1910, within such period, the court allowed a further extension of thirty days from the 3rd day of December, 1910. The case made was served on the 3rd day of January, A. D., 1911. The 1st day of January, A. D., 1911, falling on Sunday, the following day, Monday, which was the 2d day of January, A. D., 1911, was a holiday. The time for serving the case-made expiring on said day, a holiday, the plaintiff in error had the next succeeding day in which to make such service. (Syllabus by the Court.) George A. Murphey, for Plaintiff in error. OPINION OF THE COURT BY WILLIAMS, J.: The defendant in error moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the case made was not signed and settled within the time allowed. The motion for a new trial was overruled on October 4th, 1910, when plaintiff in error was given sixty days in which to prepare and serve the case-made. On November 26th, 1910, the court allowed a further extension of thirty days from the 3d day of December, 1910, to make and serve his case-made. The case-made was served on the 3d day of January, A. D., 1911. We quote the following statutes in force in this state: "Holidays are, every Sunday, the first day of January, the twenty-second day of February, the fourth day of July, the twenty-fifth day of December, 2954, Comp. Laws 1909; sec. 2704, Sess. Laws, 1890). * * * (Sec. "If the first day of January, the twenty-second day of February, the fourth day of July, or the twenty-fifth day of December, falls upon a Sunday, the Monday following is a holiday." (Sec. 2955, Comp. Laws 1909; sec. 2705, Sess. Laws 1890.) "Whenever any act of a secular nature, other than a work of necessity, or mercy, is appointed by law or contract to be performed upon a particular day, which day falls upon a holiday, such act may be performed upon the next business day, with the same effect as if it had been performe upon the day appointed." (Sec. 2957, Comp. Laws 1909; sec. 2707, Sess. Laws 1890.) "The time within which an act is to be done, shall be computed by excluding the first day, and including the last; if the last day be Sunday, it shall be excluded." (Sec. 6258 Comp. Laws 1909; sec. 4529 Sess. Laws 1893.) Under section 6258, supra, the 3d day of December must be excluded in the computation. That would leave twenty-eight days in the month of December, and by including the last day that would bring the thirty days allowed to include the 2d day of January, 1911. But the 1st day of January, 1911, fell on Sunday, and under sections 2954, 2955 and 2957, supra, the last day, to-wit, Monday, which was the 2d day of January, A. D., 1911, became a holiday. The time within which the plaintiff in error was permitted to serve his case-made having expired upon a holiday under section 2957, such case-made was permitted to be served upon the next day, which was the 3d day of January, A. D., 1911. We conclude the case-made was therefore served in time, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly overruled. All the justices concur. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, Error from the District Court of Pitsburg County Hon. P. B. Cole, trial Judge. Affirmed 1. Plaintiff's husband, for her use and benefit. January 25th, 1908, delivered to the agent of the plaintiff in |