The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-15
LRaAL INTEnrIaRNOM.
Tbe Fort DoIawnro Vote

pea5ed for some Of the defendants, who when It was
Whatever q the pIoceedlngs The returns were
70 dhe ne ev py
impr. ssion that they were doing their dutV and to-
should s be reGuPed % 6 he would cali them SeveTay and
sy ne Ion that no 20 dSesSe Ss e
meant, And, more over they came perfectly willing
OF the land and II go ordered TO cali another meet
ing Of the Board, and 20 go over the whole work
The Judge Ieplied-I haye no power whatever to
make any order ahectng the returns as counted and
closed. Nor have the Return Judges themselves any
power over them by ORDER of any authority.
face, was the ohlect Of the Injunction. II that was
bors, they not dsobedent IN the pjuncton OF
which they had no notice. The offer now Ofthe judges
thority Of the court, but the case was beyond the
the illePal voteB counted can only be corrected
by contest according to the election laws. As the
service before the Board adjourned. And that being
the case we cannot call on the judges to purge them
Amos Briggs. Esq, representing some of the defen.
William A. Leech VS. Samuel P. Hancock ct al
We the undersigned in answer to the rule
MS to show cause why we should not be attached as
for contempt for diso6edence OF said injunction,
l. That said Return Judges had performed the
functions Of their Office by counting the votes cert
the certificates to siHyeT' q cSRdGates ia elect, and
some Time before they had any notice that injunc
tiqn had been applied for or issued - the premises
said bill OF complaint has ever yet been served upon
III That no notice whatever has been given us of
time app9intted t by your honorable Court for hear
we had of such hearing was from rumor the street.
and the report of the in the afternoon papers OF
Saturday last, after the same had been had.
~. That when we were counting the said vote we
the process Of your Honorable Court, but supposed
n y of The we nrav vour Honor 70
S. p. Hancock Samuel schede Luke V. sutphin, M.
B. Green, d. NJ. Matthew. -''
Mr.. Hirst theTeupon made the following ofrer:-
I I'M red q hInr 4
material that after the votes had been counted and
and When Sree of the Judges were yet in the roSm
and probably after the adjournment, the Injunction
tie President OftLe Board that after the service to
dent, deposited in the or Of the ProtSootaTy end
as am advised forwarded duplicate by mall to
Mr., Hancock was disrespecfu to the Injunction, in.
1t his duty to susperd action until the notice for
the injunction was heard
offer of testimony varies the case as it stands
rally If the BOARD n mao i' y was NOT possible
the Injunction Nor was II violation of its terms or
HanSocR to deposit the returns in the Office after its
service, know Of no power which he possessed ofre
called fanny one objected or was absent.
nfd E S sGS to te
right to interfere MY rec1lecon oil I,on is that the sI
Pleas from sending In f9Sed returns in 1929
ment. The forgery was not seriously denied. II am
in error about ihis-ioE the case was not reported
contrary to law and Judgment to the Interest OF the
to preen paSbe s1d 1ae o e01 ts
election law. Thus convinced the injunction was
poWe and was should extend % tfe e
anything whatever which was proper to be done by
hit to sScs The ,SS ShHPseEy aP Of the
returns pal paby in law Illegal returns
PSS E Of the
Volunteers in the held and there are none there by
State authority, and there is no actual service, which
means war. Therefore, therewas semblance of
authority for the returns in que question lon p., o,,.-
Judges can revise correct what the Judge Of
Judges Of whether the return presented is for the
township or precinct, aud not mere R1anuiactured
card SP 9pfS t. should have done
condition of things under which soldiers were allowed
ISnp % ago at an end. No such soldiers any where
existed. It was, in myudgment their duty to discard
They were not to count them because they were
haps hurriediy and on'ideraely certified them TO
the Return Judges; for he S does no not seem to haye
Office II Is true the of Assembly forbids the Re
return When they appeared suoenty distinct to BE-
computed. And the act allowing the return of sol
same general footing but in that as in the others the
return belongs the Jurisdiction they are exercls-
ing. Nay, more, they must LOOK and see that IL is
If not enuted that is to say there be war aud
service WGS6 be HSSH5d 4 not great deal
elaborate The return judges, In this instance
Judicial action in the premises and only did not obey
Il because they not aware of IL until tOn los
account Of the a1!;9r niyHJ the hoard. They are
contempt, for the Injunction was not in full served
The rule was therefore discharged
COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS-Judge Ind
| low-T B. Dwight, Assistant District ATTORNEY
Michael sharp was acquitted Of charge Of entering
James Welsh plead guilty to c..arge of larceny.
Thomas Ryan pie guilty TO charge of larceny
Henry Davis plead gu ~ ~ a charge az larceny
! cenv ei'e n'"uS' Paesd guilty 10 charge of lar
ldnoT n 81 plead guilty to charge Of selling
samu[a q Webster, Henry Miller and Jacob Bender
! 'enies. The defendants are youths, and the same
who we're concerned in the robbery OF the house of
the CIV Upon their arrest they confessed to the de-
tectives that they had committed, not only the
ofienses for which they were arrested. but many
others of which they were not suspected II is esGl-
mated that within comparatively short time these
They pleaded upon one bill, and were convicted
upon others During the proceedings they were talk
to the consequences. In passing sentence the Judge
eighteen months upon Bender who appeared to be
the leader of the party and year upon of
others.
of the larceny of S6O The only evidence that O
confession made by the defendant, before his
under promise OF liberation. But this could not be
admitted TO prejudice the defendant, Mr.. Dwight said
because the inducement OF liberation Yitiated lt.
! watch The evidence was that on the night OF Octo
ber s he snatched a watch from mans pocket, at
saloon at Ninth and Arch Streets and was caught
| DIST RIOT COuRT-Judge Stroud.-Oliyer Whita
! ker VS. John II. Miller Al action for damages to
dant in falling TO comply with the verdict OF jury In
| the matter of opening an alley. Verdict for plain
w v iIam Swift VS. Mar garet Smith. An action on
book account Verdict Tor Riaintih, fSi91 ,,.-