The Weekly Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, O. [Ohio]) 1861-1???, 1866-11-02
UNPARALLELED AsTuTENEss.

Ia Us striciores on the cOm'ty seat in.
junction, the Bowling Green ddoocate, Of
last week, says -.
The Probate Judge allowed the injunction asked
for, under the suppositon That the INV prescribed
no mode for eontcstiug the election. Had the at
torneys been aware Of the existence of such
statute, the petition would probably never have
been drawn up In tie foregoing shape, aud cer-
tany the Judge, had he been properly posted,
would not have allowed the Injunction The
names OF the attorneys appear the petition three
times, and we venture tlie prediction that some of
them would b. glad 10 have these signatures
erased from q legal document which c0nviuces It's
oriRinotors Of total ignorance Of the law for con-
testing elections for tile removal OF county-seas'
The brazeunoss of this statement is truly
refreshing. Mossrs, DODGE g. TyLEa, Cook
and lloRD frumcd the petition for ipjuuc-
ton, II appearing in tho handwriting OF
one of the lirst.named attorneys, aud is ap.
proved and sigued'by Messrs. Cook, HoRD,
itANNEY MURRAy, KgSr aud SHANNON. 1t
strikes US that the legal acumen OF the gen.
tleinen who are responsible for the petition
aad It's allegations, is surely equal to that
displayed on tho other side. We do not
pretend to be posted in the law, yet wo can
see at glance the reason why the petition
for injunction was drawn and fled, and why
.he Injunction was allowed by the Court.
Tho petition, among other allegations, states
as follows:
Plaintiff says he is informed by counsel and fully
believes that the legal effect Of said record will be
conclusive to show and TO settle beyond futthcr
question, by evidence or otherwise that majority
ala Nhatr
votes in favor Of such removal. ua,. moi.
Plaintiff says that the General Assembly Of the
State of Ohio have made no provision either by
general statute or In said law, for conlcstng tho
validity Of sail election, aud that he Is entirely
rcmidicss unless through tho intervention oftbis
honorable court but that hO will, without such
intervention, suffer great and irreparable injury
and damag'. t,t .. .rI
This, We ore Informed was and still is
the opinion Of the counsel whoso names are
attached to the petition. Not that they
passed over without notice the general stat
ute for contesting all election upon the re-.
moval Of a couDty-seal See Span G @. Itch,
fslds Statutes, page 1881, but that they
held then and hold now that it is a grave
| question, and by no means clear, whether
this general Inv could be SO applied to this
heptcial statute Of 1866, as to give the right
of contcstihg the election after the returns
| had boen by the Clerk recorded on tlie
Journal Of the Court Of Common Pleas. The
words of the statute of 1866 arc as follows
| See latter part of Section 4 Of AIe sdDaeli
Aud the officers opening the returns or said cleo
| tion, shalla the samc time they make the ab-
aIpn irqtflh hy. luu ota In fv and
sign separate abstract of all the votes so re-
! tur1cd For Removal, or Against Removal, show
ing the number so given In all the townships,
which abstract shall forttrih be deposited in the
Clerks Oncc ofsaid cOtuty, and shall for1iieih be
recorded by the Clerk IN the Journal of the Court
Of Common Pleas of said county, tchch record, or q
certified copy hereQG sRUU be taken and recqiVed us
legal cridence for ALL Puposes Of tic result Of sad
votiuJ.
Making that recording which is to be
done f3rihwith, iual and conclusive beyond
al contest Now, with the general law Of
1851 before them, the attorneys for the
plaintiff very prudently enioiued The re,
ccrdng of said vote. At the same time
however, as u matter of prudence, they
have taken the proper steps to contest the
election, If the general law, as they seen
to think, does not apply for the contest o
the election held under the special ac; o
1866, then the allegation that no provisio,
is made for the contcsting of said vote" il
> true, Al all llevents, it will take decision
of tho courts to determine tho matter, anC
the attorneys have acted wisely in bringing
up both questions. ,,4
i We write this article not TO defend OF
I excuse the attorneys who drew, or thos
,, who approved and signed the petition
: The high legal reputation Of each aud all o
them is too we'll established to need an
defense. We must, however, protest agains
J tho stupidity that attacks a paper it ha
T not the ability to comprehend. r8 'nH
j 1t does strike us, however, that it wa
4 not very sharp for the State's attorney,
s he really had an idea that the attorney
i here had overlooked the general statute 10
o coatestng the election, TO come right her
d and announce tho fact and 80 put them o
It their guard. There was not much shrowc
ness displayed in tha t matter even it OH
l. attorneys had made . b!undsr Tho fact
that tho important point in the case is nc
- at all comprchended by our Bowling Gree
a friends, nor their lawyers, and our attorney
, have been drawing them oil on this taugen
e and laughing at them in ihcir sleeves,
n see the eagerness with which they took IL