The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-10-30


The respondent no,o on review claims credit for 81
division. Judge brewster says, in de.
lvering the opinion ,f the Court, at has
been urged that II the person whose vote was ile-
gally received is now called and lie swears that on
election day he lived in that division, the fraud is
derstand the law. The statute Challenges
the man whose name is not tue list
II matters not that he is known to every man mi
the poll, the people OF the whole Commonwealth
challenge his vote. The state steps in ana saws thai
you shall comply with my law before that ballot
not then be cnOugh shall it avail afterwards? At the
poll he should produce Tax receipt, produce a
voucher and two oaths should be administered;
this Is all dsregarded, and it is supposed that inc
defect is remedie If one of the four requirements is
complied with. When the case comes before the
Court 1t is an answer to all this sophistry to
say that while the law stands it IS a part
post fdc,o obedience TO one mandate cannot
absOlrc the disregard of three other commands and
that frauds Ike these can only be purged by distinct
ana Iu PROOF as to every vote claimed in three divi
si0ns.' The respondents renew this sophistry and
SUI by means OF 1t claim credit Of "a such votes
error OF the Court is in deductng 61 instead of ST.
making still further to he added to Mr. Gibbons
credit 20. Making at this stage Mr. Gibbons ma
Jority IS.
! he respondent charges error of Ii votes in the
Seventh division, Seventeenth ward
llIeRal vote .2l
Uhassessed vote. ote.........................
Return for Mr.. Gibbons. s........................so
Republican vote proved.
- "a
40
The respondent now by renewal of his sophstry
claims credit for % Democratic unassessed votes
proved which the Court have decided not to receive
The 80 deducted by the Court should be 40, making
10 more in favor of Mr.. Gibbons, making at this
stage his majority As.
The respondents alledge an error OF &c votes in
Fourth division Of Twenty-hlth ward.
On page the illegal vote IS. ls................12
On pages Z aud the unassessed vote is. .5l-63
The return gives Mr. Gibbons 81 votes Al
Republican votes proved ...............4S- 1-6i
By'a repetition of the same sOphistry,
the respondent claims a credit OF 80
Democratic unassessed votes proved,
which are dsaOwCd by the court.
The court deduct in this division. 81
1t should have been. en....,...............64
A correction of the error will give Mr..
Gibbons an addition OF. of............... l3
Making at this stage Mr.. Gibbons mai. 6l
In sixteenth division Of Twentieth ward,
the return carried into the general re-
turn, was for Charles Gibbons ............260
The count for Charles Gibbons. ns.......274
Making difference in favor Of Mr.. GIBBONS
The return for Furman Sheppard was. go. .305
The count for Mr.. Sheppar was. ...... ....2I9
Making difference in favor of Mr.. Gibbons 26-40
The respondent g petition for review is ac-
CurGte in respect or these votes,
Making Mr.. Gibbons maj. less by 5........ SIS
Majority of Mr. Gibbons. ................ Sc
The petition Tor the review has merit in it, as it
is based upon the allowance of the unassessed
Democratic votes alleged to have been pOlled, which
the Court have expressly said should not be counted
and therefore said petition ought not to be allowed
to be filed or placed upon the records of the Court.