
    THE STATE on the relation of DAVID N. KILBURN v. ISAAC PATTERSON.
    
      E lections — Pleading.
    In an action to recover possession of an office to which the relator alleges he was duly chosen, but was excluded therefrom by the illegal action of the Board of Canvassers in rejecting certain returns, it is not necessary to set forth in the complaint, specifically, the errors which the Board committed; an averment that the relator was duly elected and is unlawfully prevented from the enjoyment of the office, is sufficient.
    The relator alleged that he had been duly elected Treasurer of Craven County, at an election held in November, 1886, but that the County Canvassers had illegally rejected certain returns and declared the defendant elected, who had been inducted into the office and was exercising its functions, &e.
    The defendant demurred. There was judgment overruling the demurrer, and defendant appealed.
    
      Messrs. H. R. Bryan and M. D’ W. Stevenson, for the pla.int.i-ff
    
      Messrs. W. W. Clark and C. M. Busbee, for the defendant.
   MerrimoN, J.

This case is substantially like that of Gatling v. Boone, decided at the present term, and must be governed by it.

The second ground of demurrer assigned is, that the complaint does not allege specifically in what respects the Board of County Canvassers erred in rejecting the returns from certain voting places mentioned. Such allegations were not. necessary, because the decision of the Board was not conclusive, and the purpose of this action is not to have the Court below, as a court of errors, correct particular errors of the-Board, but to ascertain and determine the result of the election in question, and whether the relator was elected, as he alleges he was, and if so, to require that he be inducted into the office, according to law.

There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.  