The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1867-03-01

the damages were set at 81 90. a-The facts
Of the case are as follows: -
Mr.. Reese quiet, industrious citizen who
has apparently about one-fourth. African
bloed in his veins, and who has several times
exercised the right Of suffrage in this place,
presented his vote at the POLLS last fall, was
challenged and bis vote refused by the Trus-
tees. Believing himself entitled. to the right
Of suffrage under the decision of the Su-
preme court, he brought suit against the
trustees for damages, JUDGE GREENE and
HoMER EvxRETr, ESQ. volunteering as his
counsel. FrSEFRock and WNstow ap-
i pearing for the defense.
The defense denied that there was any
evidence TO prove that Reese had a predomi-
nance Of white blood and took the; ground
also that he did not make formal presenta-
tion of his ballot, and that the decision of
the Trustees that "Niggers could not
vote" was abstract and did not reject the
vote of Reese in particular. It was proved,
however, by most reliable witnesses, to the
entire satisfaction of the Jury that Reese has
predominance Of white blood, and that he
presented his ballot at the polls and that the
decision of the Trustees above referred to,
was made on the basis Of his application.
Mr.. Reese gave his testimony in regard to
his parentsge in a straight forward manner,
and it tailed 50 exactly with his color aud
shape of features, that there was no reasonable
doubt 10 the mind of any man in the Court
room to the question of blood.
The arguments of Messrs.. GREENE and
EVERETT were very able and thorou gh, aud
will be remembered as among the finest
ever delivered at the bar 10 this county.
The charge of Judge Stone to the Jury
ELECTED general praise from the bar and was
a clear exposition of the law upon the follow
ing points:
Isr. The right of an slector to maintain
an action against the Judges of election in
case his ballot is wrongfully rejected and his
right to vote is denied. G.
2D. The qualifications necessary to con-
stitute an elector, with particular reference
to the blood Of the person claiming To exer-
else the right Of suffrage, where the ques-
ton presented is, whether he is within the
meaning of the Constitution, a white person.
I 81. The character of the evidence which
is in such case, admissible for the purpose
of showing whether or not the person claim
ing to ba an elector has that proportion of
the blood of the white race which entities
him, under the Constitution to exercise the
right of suffrage.
We regret that we are not able to present
full report of the charge upon these
points Advsrtipg to the issue made in
the pleadings as to whether the plaintiff Of
fered to vote and whether his right to
vote was in fact denied, Judge Stone
said that this was an issue Of fact which
belonged exclusively to the Jury to de-
termine. The only question upon this sub
iect was, what was the honest truth in rela-
tion to it. 1t was for the Jury to say what
efforts, if any, the plaintiff made to vote
through the window from the outside and
what transpired after be Passed into the room.
If he did not offer to vote and did not give
the defendants go to understand, his case
must fad upon this point or if he offered 10
vote and the defendants did not deny his
right ,to-yote and did not pass upon that
question; If, in the answer which they gave
they only intended TO express an opinion
upon an abstract proposition, and did net
authorize the plaintiff to understand that it
was their determination Of the question with
reference to him, they did not reject his vote.
But it was not necessary for the plaintiff in
rendering his ballot TO use any particular
form of words. If he stood there in the pres.
enee of the Judges with his ballot in bis
hand it does not follow that he did not eff.
fectually tender his vote, even though he
failed to utter a word. Whether lie was
called upon to say anything depended upon
other circumstances; aud upon this subject
II was the duty Of the Jury to take the at
tending circumstances into consideration.
Did the plaintiff 60 there to vote. and was he
there, standing in the presence of the judges
with his ballot in his hand, for the purpose
of voting, and as a matter of fact offering to
vote Did the defendants SO understand 7
Did they thereupon consult with reference
to his case for the purpose of determining
whether they would receive his vote, and
did they, by the answer which they gave
after such consultation, intend tie plaintiff
should understand they denied his right to
vote, that he would not be permitted to vote
at that election lfso they rejected his vote
and were liable in this action provided the
Jury found, under the returns before given
that the plaintiff was duly qualified elector,
entitled to vote at that election 10
The decision in this case was not infu-
enced in any way by political pref udice and
the verdict was rendered in strict accordance
with the facts as adduced by the evidence
In fact the majority Of the Jury, nine, we be-
lieve, have always been identifi ID with the
Democratic party, and would naturally share
the party feeling against the race. The
damages were of course merely nominal but
the counsel for the prosecution stated dis
tinctly that their client asked no damages,
but simply decision Of the question as TO
his right to vote, and this question is settled
for ever in this county for Reese and all men
Of his cl1Es.
Richard Van Buskirk VS.. Ellen Van Bus
kirk. This is an sction brought by the bu.-
band against the wife for divorce aud the
custody of their child, Minnie, aged about
four years. At the October term, 1866, a
divorce was granted to the husband, and the
matter Of the custody of the child continued,
the court granting the temporary custody to
the mother. The mother continued in the |
custody of her child until the 9Th day oil
January, 1867, when the father succeeded in |
getting possession Of the child, whereupon |
the mother sent out writ of hdbeds corpus |
and under it the child was taken in the Gus
tody of the Sheriff and the matter continued |
untilthe February term, at which time the |
matter came up for hearing both in the d.
vorce case and upon the hdbeas corpus; and
upon investigation the court gave the custo
dy of the child to its grand father Gordon s. |
Wilson, father of Ellen Van iBusk irk, defend !
ant in the divorce case. Messrs. Bartlett |
and Finefrock for defendant, and Messrs. |
Hord and Winslow for plaintiff.
wJ.Hughes VS.. West and Dana for money
only. Damages laid at $500 for nom fulfil