Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-06-13

OF hlllldlIiS, the hSSlslTdIs 10 ~ D6AAlh'
the face of the returns of the election a:
made, etc, etc.
The Court stated that the case was no
one of a contested election but to require
an officer to perform a duty or to preven'
him from performing an illegal act.
After some further preliminary spar
ring, the Court directed the petition o
VIM. Wallace to be read, which was done
the fiat and order of the Court on tn
same being also read-the substance of al
of which was Bublished in the APPEAL
several days ago..
Mr.. Kortrecht then proceeded to reaC
the answer of Williams to the same which
is as follows;
WILLIAMS REPLY.
The said J.. Z. Williams, COMMISSIONS
ETC., returns the alternative mandamui
heretofore issued to him by the Honora
BILE Circuit Court of Shelby county, anC
as required therein, shows cause why th'
same should not be made peremptory
and for cause and answer shows and saws
That it is true that he did, as COMMISSIONS
of Registration for Shelby county, Ten,
nessee, on the 9th of May, 1869, in pursu,
ance Of a PROCLAMATION Of the Governor
hold am election for all the judicial offices
in the said county, and among them fol
the Judgeship Of the Criminal Court Of
Memphis. Respondent further admits
that the ~relatOr, VIM. Wallace and one
II. +. Hudson, were opposing candidates
for the latter Office, and that they both
qualified and complied with the require.
meuts necessary to become candidates.
But respondent n admit, as alleged
and claimed by the said Wallace, that the
Judge of said Criminal Court should be
elected by the qualified voters of the
Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fiji
teenth Civil Districts of said county; on
the contrary he was legally advised, prior
to said election, and still Is, that all the
qualified voters of Shelby county We're
entitled to vote for the Judge of said
Criminal Court, and acting upon this adj
vice, and his own belief, respondent
states that he issued through the columns
of the Memphis Daily Post, n newspaper
published in the said county and in the
city of Memphis, instructions to the va
riOus officers appointed to hold said cleo
ton.
Respondent denies that he is illegally
proceeding to count votes cast within said
Civil Districts by persons living without
the same, n he admits that, acting I'M
der legal advice as aforesaid, be instructed
the Judges Of said election TO receivd for
the said office of Criminal Judge, the
votes of those properly qualified living in
said county, yet he CANNOT say whether or
not any such votes were so cast as alleged
in said mandamus, as all the polls where
votes were cast in said Fifth, Thir-
teenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Civil
Districts were located in the various
wards of the said city of Memphis, and
said Judges of election, in making their
returns Of the votes polled, do not state or
show whether or not any of said votes
were polled by persors living without said
Fifth, Thirteenth, fourteenth and Fiji
teenth Civil Districts; and respondent is
advised that his duties as Commissioner
in receiving the returns Of judges of cleo
ton, and in counting the votes, are purely
ministerial, and that he canno go beyond
or look outside Of said returns as made to
him; and the said city oeing within the
said Civil District ne cannot know
whether any votes Sc polled were cast by
persons living outside of said district or
not; respondent therefore denies that it is
possible for him, or any one, from the re-
turns of the said Judges Of election to dis
tinguish or separate the votes east by res
idents of the said Civil District from those
cast by residents Of the county outside of
the said districts; provided, il is a fact
that said voters residing out of said dis
tricts did not vote for the Judge of the
Criminal Court within said districts,
which respondent does not know or admit.
lespOndent, further answering, saws:
He admits that in his said instructions he
advised and directed that at each of the
polls ina The wards of said city there should
be kept two ballot boxes, one marked
District, /" and the other marked Estate
and County," and that the votes of those
persons residing within the Fifth, Thir-
teeuth aud Fourteenth Civil Districts
We're, in said instructions, directed to be-
deposited in the former OF said boxes, and
the votes of those persons residing
within said districts were TO be depos-
tied in the latter of said boxes:
whether these instructions were
obeyedh be cannot state. That respondents
in establishing the ballot boxes
marked District was only to have the
votes cast for the Judge and Prosecuting
Attorney of the Municipal Court, which
has jurisdiction G the Sixth, thirteenth
and Fourteenth Civil Districts and no
more, polled in separate boxes, and il will
be seen that ballots of the Fifteenth Civil
District, being one of the districts which
the relator admits should have voted for
Judge of said Criminal Court, were by
said instructions to have been deposited
in the boxes marked state and COUNTY,
SO that the fact that the votes o fthose re-
in the Fifth, Thirteenth and Four
Civil Districts being polled in sepa-
rate boxes ifthey WeresO polled, wouldnot
respondent e. separate the ballots
Of the residents of the Hffh, Thirteenth.
and Fifteenth Civil Districts
nom those of persons residing outside the
same, Respondent il informed the ques- |
asked by said Judges of election of
he voters, was, whether they lived in the |
. city on country" and that the votes Of |
hose answering that they lived in the |
,ity We're deposited in the boxes marked
. District" and of all others in the boxes
state and county" and as said
Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fiji /
zenith Civil Districts embrace about one
onrth of Shelby county, and the city Of
Memphis only a small portion Of said
Districts, the questions so asked afforded
no test whether said voters resided in or /
'ut OF said District, But however all this
nay be, as before stated, nothing appears
IN the face of or in said returns to show
any Ofthe votes 50 cast for Judge of
aid Court were pOlled by persons resid-
ne out Ofsaid Civil District; and as be-
ore stated petitioner is advised that he
annoi. a. q ministerial officer, in reeeiv-
ny retulus aud counting votes, inquire |
utside of the returns made to him as 10
be truth or falsehood 0 any ofthese ru-
or reports. 5a IVA
Respondent further answering, saws.
hat pTiOrrfo the serviee of said alterna-
i've mandamus upon him, to-wit: on Sat
rdav Nav 70, 1868. he had issued to tho |
aid II. =. Hudson, a certificate of his
as Judge of the Criminal Court
+ Memphis, because, by the returns made
} him, byaWhich alone becould be guided,
appeaFed TO him that he, said Hudson,
adj received a majority ofthe votes polled
" that office, and not the ~relator, VIII
Wallace, as by him claimed in said1
landamus. Finally, respondent says
in conducting his said duties Is
Commissioner of Registration, he had
ted, wherever the proper course seemed (,
1ubtful, under legal advice, and with
noere desiEe 70 discharge the responsible
titles OF his ofice with fidelity and ina
.rtlality-he therefore denies zach and
the allegations Of fraud made against s.
m by the Feiator, and denonnces the I
as false and untrue in every partie- :