The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-01-06
Fillmore County Senators.

Fillmore County Senators.
We presume the Senate will take action
upon the right of Messrs. O'FARRELL and
BRYANT to their seats, in few days. Before
doing SO, we trust every Senator who pro-
fesses to be governed by sense of justice
in his legislative action, will peruse the
decision Of Judge WILSON, one of the most
orthodox Republicans in the State, in the
case of PICKET vs. WHEELER, which pre-
sents an identical state of facts with those
involved in the contest between the Repub.
lican claimants and Messrs. O'FARRELL and
BRYANT. Of Judge WILSON'S decision, we
give as much below as we have room for:
DISTRICT Court, FILLMORE COUNTY -
William q. Picket Us. Henry G.. Wheeler.
At the general election held in Fillmore
county, October, 1858, the above named
parties, plaintiff and defendant, were the op-
posing candidates for Sheriff of said county.
The Board of County Canvassers alleging
that it appeared from certain evidence offered
to them that fraud had been perpetrated
on the ballot box in the Chat6eld precinct,
in said county, rejected the returns from
that precinct exclusive of this precinct
defendant had one hundred majority of the
vote of the county, had the votes of that
precinct (Chat6eld) been canvassed, plaintiff
would have had a majority of fourteen.
A certificate OF election was issued to
defendant, and thereupon plaintiff notified
defendant that he (plaintiff) would contest
bis (defendants) election to said Office, at the
general term of the District Court to be held
in said county in November, 1858. The
parties appeared at said term of court, and
by their counsel stipulated that the trial
should be had at Chatfeld, December 18th,
1858.
The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that
he and defendant were the candidates for
Sheriff of said county at the October elec-
tion, 1858, that at said election be (plaintiff)
received majority of all the votes cast for
the candidates for that Office, and that the
board of county canvassers had wrongfully
rejected the vote of the Chatfeld precinct,
and issued certificate of election to defend.
ant. The answer of defendant denied that
plaintiff had received majority of the votes
or that the vote of the Chatfield precinct
had been wrongfully rejected and alleged
that during the recess for dinner on election
day in said Chatfeld precinct, some person
unknown had distracted from the ballot box
large number of genuine Republican bal
lots and inserted an equal number of spuri-
Gus Democratic ballots, which plaintiff de-
MED.
Plaintiff then offered in evidence the
abstract made by the Board of County
Canvassers, which abstract showed that
defendant had in the county one hundred
majority of the votes for said office of Sheriff.
Plaintiff proved by the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors lone of the county canvass.
ers) that in the abstract made by the board
and which had been offered in evidence, the
vote of the Chat6eld precinct had not been
included, and plaintiff then offered in evil
dence the original poll book of the Chat6eld
precinct, which showed that 194 votes had
been cast in that precinct for plaintiff, and
"a for defendant, making, when added to
the vote OF the balance of the county, IA
majority for plaintiff. Defendant then
called ninety.two witnesses who testified
that at the general election in October, 1858,
they voted for defendant for Sheriff in the
Chatfeld precinct. and four others testified
that they believed they so voted and that
they received their ballots from parties by
them named, which parties having been
called testified that the ballots G iven to those
witnesses were Republican, and had thereon
the name of defendant for Sheriff.
Defendant further called witness, who
testified that the ballot box used in that
precinct was common garden-seed box,
with the cover fastened with shingle nails
only that the cover was readily removed
with a jackknife that there was but one
clerk of election; that, during the recess for
dinner, the ballot box was put into the safe
of one Geo. L. Nichols, which safe was in
the Office of Mr.. Dexter, one of the Judges
of Election.
Plaintiff then called the Judges of Elec.
tion, who testified that there were no ballots
distracted from the box during the day of
election, unless it was during the recess for
dinner and two of the Judges (the third
had no charge of the box during that time),
Mr.. Dexter and Mr.. Fitch, testified that they
did not believe any ballots had been ab-
stracted during the said recess; that they,
when the Board adjourned for dinner, took
the ballot box to the Office of Mr.. Dexter,
and undertook to place it in his safe, but
could not do so on account of the size OF the
box, and that they then put it into the safe
of one Geo. L. Nichols, which was in Mr..
Dexter's office; that Mr.. Dexter, after hav.
ing placed the ballot box in the safe, locked
it, and took the key, and kept it during the
recess and until they afterwards took out
the ballot box; that they Dexter and
Fitch were together during the whole time
of the adjournment for dinner, and not near
the Office in which the safe was save at the
time they placed the ballot box in the safe
| and at the time they removed it; that, when