The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-11-20
LEGAL NTELLIG ENCE.
The Coptested Eleetions.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-Judges Allison,
o Snd as In
court this morning to argue the motion made
by the respondent To strike out the petitions of
the contestants because of the lnsunlciency OF
the amdavits supporting them.
William H Rawle, Esq, stated to the court
there were seven contested election cases here,
fve OF which were in the Common Pleas and
two III the Quarter Sessions, and the court had
considerably consented TO hear them all to-
gether and, in response to this consideration,
himself Messrs, Meredith and Mann represent'
ing the contestants In all the cases, had agreed
in order to make all the cases similar, to with
draw the last specification In the District At
torney's case, setting forth the prevention OF q
fair election by the Sherifi's deputies.
William l.. Hirst, Esq, on the part of the re.
thought that the withdrawal OF all the specih.
cations would save the Court a great deal OF
trouble.
The Court granted the application; Judge
Ludlow dissenting,
Mr.. Hirsl, opening the argument on the part
OF the respondents In support OF the motions
to quash, said he would argue no question that
bad already been overruled. Here were seven
different petitions OF seven different parties,
necessitnting seven examinations; and he
thought it would be Of use to examine the his
tory OF these contests AT first contests were con.
fined to one office, but of late years the number
of offices involved had increased wonderfully
Now parties had thrown into Court the can
vases of seven candidates, forty -four election
districts were brought in. thirty or forty thou
sand votes were to oe scrutinized, the conduct
OF seven hundred and sixty. six election officers
to be tried Disappointed candidates would
rush anywhere and, like parties who had re-
oeived a verdict against tnem would hasten to
ask for new trial, which substantially this
proceeding was.
AS he said before, he would not raise any
question already decided by the Court unless
specially invited by the Court to do 30. In the
case coming under the jurisdiction OF the Lourt
of Common Pleas, the law applicable consisted
first of the Acts of Assembly of July, 1899,
which referred TO the offices of the Prothono-
tsry of the Common Pleas and Register and
referring to the rule contesting county and
township offices; and secondly, five of them
depended upon the Act Of February 2, 1854.
There were two classes OF exceptions to these
petitions, the one under the law applicable to
the Prothonotary and the District Attorney,
and the second under the law respecting M u :
nicipal officers. All of them raised questions
as 10 the legality of Jumping specifications,
and he would compress the entire argument
into the four questions; the first, as to Jumping
specifications; the second as to the speciica-
tion that had already been struck out; third,
whether the affidavits had been sworn to before
lawfully authorized officers, which referred to
the cases of the PrOthonotary City Controller,
and Receiver OF Taxes and, fourth, as to the
validity of the body and sui distance OF the affi-
davits themselves which referred to the Mayor,
City Commissioner, Controller, Receiver OF
Taxes, and City Solicitor.
The petettons here presented twenty-five
specifications. the first twelve of which ask ed
the Court to throw out twelve entire precincts
as to which he would not speak unless the
and the last thirteen said that votes to the
number of five and upwards, which were lille.
gal, had been received in various precincts
These latter specifications arraigned the vote o
the following pre- Gin cts:-
Fifth Ward-First Second Third, Fourth
Sixth Ward-Fourth, Fifth, Sixth. Seventh
Eighth divisions