New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-12-11
FOURTEENTH WARD ELECTION.
Opinion Of Judge Mitchell.
SUPREME COURT.

In ne matter o) the application Of LEVI CHAryIBLD
fcr q WGHdemus against JOSEPH BRITros and
ofbtrs, comfy artassers fer the County Of Nsw'
York.
By TIE CouRT-M Mitchell. Justice. On
this application II appeared tina. Lew ;. Chaifed
and Daniel Ulmann were candidates al the election
held on the 4th Of Nov. last for the Office OF AItor.
ey-GeneraL The applicants papers also showed
that In the Seco.d Election District Of the Four
teerih Ward. Mr.. Chasfeid received 337 votes and
Mr. Uumsnn & votes, and that the Inspectors made
returns Of the votes 10 the Supervisor Of the Ward
and he produced them 10 the County anyassers
but that the County Canyassers about 10 re- eci
the votes OF that District, and max return to the
State Officers excluding those votes.
On this statement an order was obtained 10 sHow
why n1-nd-Inus should not issst TO eou-Pei
TIE County Cany3sseYs 70 Include the voters OF the
Second District IN their return, and on the sPpll
CAMS motion. those CanVasteTs were iofoldcen 10
deliver 10 thu County Clerk any return Of the votes
oftbe whole Fourteenth Ward for Attorney General
Until the hearing Of the motion.
IL now arrears that tire County Canvassers rejected the
return OF the Second District Is Of 70 ega validity IN
their opinion bc1rse the nspecou and he Clerk Of the
Pors were ssorB on "Olendorf's HetEod Of Teaching
Frerch and rct the Bsbe and for other guariss
md tha, sluce The order 70 show made the
icding them 70 return the votes Of the Fourteenh Nsra
have omitted tie 20 the whole Of that U1d ios
Attorney General But stl they have made return 20
the County ck ~ general terms ofLhe whole nunoei
OF votes tie sevral Election Dstric.s IN tns C%ao
AID ;hs, he hoe IabsI gwen e., ioi sI ~ss i, ga
The yarous questions the order TO snoT aA's
been arg ed az ea, length and Win sea. X cou,.
The fTtt order Is, "a TINS case IA Wells ~
orgty 70 interfere By IraLdafnus L.-..x. t...y
uandsmus never allowed oq. 90 ~. ,-c,ys
st ara WHO has no other specific less Isrneoy
psy ms beer refused applied for . y me .e o.
- &C. berarse there another soectre iegal
hv rsormsfor IN narnre Of quo war ahto 70 hhi'
esS Peop'e Shaw IT. K - .,,s,, q, n. .. Il
iox al ID e. Hea-h, 3Hll - - 70 esnpst
49, 49, ri New YORK adm nAtsr the can Oh once -
~ cI.S oftLo Beads 81 Alderman ard ASH an Acsi
30 TssrsrtiveT but N Hi go i u stated sns. tns
n,,tsn this ssthe proper Eeneay u NOV
IL that case. -. r. trli aia ~ was re- fused
Con- an rtfrsec - permit taIsier OF stoch
trrss, me pax had pie rsmscy tho'sh no. sper
49, Cnrrt sylre ttst" 81 gc-eYa rule mshoanlas
81, not b. awarded when the party las an e1eqtas fehe
A, h. acifp' Itirot granted Whenever spectH, Iesa
does pSs Ell. for then u mig t nave oeen alto" 60
20 fpfc. the cfc Performance OF co1aac, % cave
snSs psrssrti grol erty ne parry appIlss 10
~ have nah. 20 hat he claims, blt also
80 ID 10 fCcsytr n a specific form what ne cisim ma
! Vwss or -i~e.ff n tie case ~ SerDuy h,asoa
T-a.rh IN !, lay % compel the delivery o. scomine
; On lsI bees 'rttes sna sis1ed ~ ibs rfesiios
:. Ia late. 8 .e, I'D S'Gies>si ~ bJ Tue Sefrasn