
    The Burden Bank v. Robert R. Phelps.
    No. 198.
    1. Check: — given to influence voters at election is without consideration and against public policy. A check given to influence the electors of a township to carry bonds is without consideration and against public policy; and when a bank certifies upon a check drawn upon it in favor of a township treasurer, that it is good if certain bonds in favor of a railway company, to be voted upon in said township three days later, are carried and the road is not built within the time specified in the proposition, the object for which the check was given as stated in such certificate, is against public policy and the check is void.
    2. Election Expenses — statute provides deposit for, not to influence voters. Paragraph 1285 of the General Statutes of 1889 does not provide for the deposit of a sum of money after an election has been called and the expenses incurred, to influence electors to carry the bonds to be voted upon at such election. It provides that the deposit must be made or secured before the election is called.
    Error from Cowley District Court. Hod.. M. G. Troup, Judge.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1897.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This actiou was brought by plaiutiff iu error agaiust defeudaut iu error to recover ou a check which defeudaut had giveu ou the plaiutiff aud which plaiutiff had certified aud had paid. The electors iu a certaiu towuship iu Cowley Couuty were about to vote upou a proposition to issue bonds in aid of the construction of a railroad. It was doubtful whether the proposition would carry, and defendant in error who desired the proposition to carry gave to the treasurer of the township the check in question, for the ostensible purpose of defraying the expenses of the election, but for the real purpose of influencing the voters at the election. The plaintiff in error certified the check in the following words ;
    “This check is good for ninety dollars if the bonds to be voted on in Sheridan Township, October 19,1886, in favor of the Kansas City & Panhandle Kailway Company are carried and the road is not built within the time specified in the proposition. E A. Hen-thorn, Cashier.”
    Plaintiff in error alleged these facts in its bill of particulars, and also alleged that the bonds carried and that the road was not built. An objection to the introduction of evidence, on the ground that the bill of particulars failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, was sustained, and this question is now before this court.
    
      John C. Pollock, for plaintiff in error.
    No appearance for defendant in error.
   Milton, J.

The record in this case presents but one question for our consideration : Did the Bank lawfully pay the check? The amended bill of particulars alleges that the check was accepted and guaranteed to be good by the plaintiff at the special instance and request of the defendant, and upon his promise to reimburse plaintiff for any payment it might lawfully make upon said check. The check was without consideration, the object'for which it was given, as stated in the certificate, was against public policy, and therefore void. The check is dated October 16, and was given to influence the voters to carry the bonds to be voted upon at an election which was to occur three days later. The election was called and would have been held, and no additional expense was made by the township because of the giving of the check. There was no consideration given or assumed by the township. It could not therefore have maintained an action upon the check. The amended bill of particulars states that a large number of the electors were opposed to voting the bonds without such guarantee, and that for the purpose of removing such objection and inducing said electors to vote the bonds, the defendant executed the check, procured its certification as aforesaid, and delivered it to the township treasurer, and that by reason of the giving of such check the bonds were voted. The check being given and the certification being made for the sole purpose of influencing the voters of Sheridan Township to carry the bonds, the transaction was against public policy, and the certification showing the exact purpose for which the check was given, it was void. The plaintiff is in no condition to assert that it did not know of the purposes for which the check was given, and was acting in good faith, for the reason that the certification shows the exact purpose for which it was made.

Counsel for plaintiff contends that paragraph 1285 of the General Statutes of 1889 expressly authorizes the giving of the guarantee. In this he is certainly mistaken. Paragraph 1285 provides that before an election shall be called to vote aid, etc., by any county, township or city, a sum shall be paid or secured to the county commissioners sufficient to pay the expenses of the election. It does not say that, after the election has been called and all the expenses incurred, a sum shall be paid or guaranteed to influence the electors to carry the bonds.

The court committed no error in sustaining the objection to the introduction of any evidence to support the amended bill of particulars.

The judgment is affirmed.  