The New York herald., 1869-06-17
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS COURT.
SUPREME COuS1-ciRCu!I-pART /.


SUPREME COURT -CRCu!T-PARTl |.
The Aldcrmanic Contested Election Case-Thc
Case Closed Betting Hats ON the Verdict.
Before Judge Mullen.
The u oD,e de-, er rel. Jas. T. McVednp, Us. Peter
Cuka-The plaintiff brings this suit for the purpose
Oi oustng the defendant from the Office of Alderman
OF Ninth district OF this city, setting up fraud
in the returns made at the election by
virtue of which the defendant claims to
hold. On the adjournment of the case on
Monday last G question had arisen as to the Juris-
diction Of the court to determine the question at
issue, the defendants counsel claiming that the
certificate OF election given by the Board Of Can
yassers was final and could not be set aside.
Yesterday Judge Mullen decided that tie court had
jurisdiction and so held
MIR. Sullivan then moved for o n0n-suit, upon
which motion
The Court held that the action was framed accord
ing TO the statute and presented TWO questions
one whether Mr.. Culkin rIghtfully In office, on
which Judgment for plaintiff would be judgment Of
Ouster the other whether Mr.. McVeany was entitled
to the onice. With regard to the former he had no
doubt. With regard to the latter, TO which almost
oil Mr.. Sullivans argument related, he was In
doubt; but the defence could proceed, and in his
final charge he would rule.
The defence then Called MI. Dunham, tne can
vasser The Eleventh district who testified that he
counted the votes and signed the return; he took the
signed returns nome they were sealed when he took
them; he himself delivered the sealed return to the
clerk; still sealed, and, far as he knew, had
not been opened; he heard no announcements made
diflerng from the return; when he signed the police
return 1t was not filed n the poll clerks had nothing
TO do with the canvassing.
When shown the certificates on crOsS-eXaminat0n
he could see no signs OF erasure.
John J. Foley, one OF the canvassers OF the Four
teenth distric testified that the return made to the
CITY canvassers was correct; the police certificate
was marked by him mot Ollclal' tue reason he had
done was that the inspectors had been Negligent
Other votes for Assistant Alderman in other boxes;
on the canvass the poll clerks assisted asserting
the ballots: :.AckerInan undertook TO do so ana con-
fused the others and he then directed the police to
remove strangers; the tickets were within his reach;
Mr.. Ackerman was there; his attention was on the
tickets, and did not notice the persons inside the
rail particularly; he did not see any tickets taken
from the McVeany pile or Cuikin tickets substituted
one OF the poll clerks filled up the certificate before
he signed it; 1t was sealed up In his and Lakes pre-
sence and delivered by him to The city authorities
CrosseXamned-The vote was short more than
one, more than two; could not say how many votes
for Assistant Alderman In other boxes; after giving
the mot Ofcla" certificate he thought not more
than ten; tue final certificate showed 444 votes the
not official cerdcate gives go III and SO; his only
vass was not completed; he did not examine the
mot onicap' return when he signed it;
kept any tally lists; ne couldn't see that
anything had been scratched out at all; he did
moi II scratched; no couldn't tell why the vote
other tickets differed widely from the other votes;
he was then in the grocery business; he took the re-
Of Repairs and Paving, appointed by Mr.. Mclean;
he didn't know whether by MIR. Culk1n's influence or
not.
On redirect examination he testified that there
was much confusion ana splitting OF votes.
Edward j. TAYLOR, who was @ poll clerk OF the
Filth district testified that on the morning OF The
election he met McVeany, with whom he was ac-
quainted, and was told by him that what Branigan
should do direct would be right he saw Branlgan
doing what ne called stung the ballot box, that Is,
dropping votes INTO the "charter' box; he went cut
and looked at the tickets so as 10 Know their backs;
Brangan was putting in McVeany ballots at u sub.
sequent conversation win Mcveany he had SAID that
what Brangan was doing was right.
The court here took u recess, and after recess,
the absence OF Taylor. Mr.. Johnson one OF the can
vassers was recalled, and testified that the canvass
was completed when he signed the certificate.
Mr.. TAYLOR was then recalled. Mr.. Valentine, one
Of the inspectors, had the poll book In which the
the poll book was altered; he saw Mr.. Mcveany
standing beside the book during the day. con-
versation with Mr. Brangan was ruled out.
On cross-examlnation ne sad that he had wanted
Mr. Mcyeany to get him into the Post once, but he
had not got IN; he nad not seen the face Of the bal
lots put in by Branigan, only the back OF them; Mr..
BraniGan was supposed TO be the democratic poll
gan was deIrauding the election but said nothing
until he called him ont; the votes he put in were
votes where there , were not voters he was sure
couldn't say thirty couldn't say hfiy; ON rejection
lie would say forty.
Mr.. Spencer asked him II he knew how many votes
were castY
Witness dd not know.
Mr. Spcncer-How was it that II additional ballots
put IN that while the vote for Mayor 424, and
for Corporation Counsel 42o, that for Assistant Alder
man was but 4lsS
Witness had no explanation to give witness
was not now In work he had asked the re-
publican party for work. but had not got II !;
he was In A. T. Stewards store and had been dis
charged for intoxicaton he had been employed be-
fore by MS brother he had once been q railroad
and had been discharged he didn't inquire why !:
he had not come before the city canvassers he had
told Till lately; he had been promised nothing
by any one within the last Two weeks.
Mr. Alderman Whites testimony, gwen before the
city canvassers was read, and the defendants case
closed
The counsel then summed up the case on both
sides and
The Court charged the jury substantially that It
was question OF veracity for the Jury to decide
between The witnesses for the plalntlf and for the
defendant II they believed the plaIntifrs witnesses
and that the returns had been altered, thereby In
Creasng the defendants vote to the prejudice OF the
plantin, the plaintiif was entitled To q judgment.
The Court would however, submit two questions
20 the jury-frst aid the defendant receive the
greater number OF votes at the said charter election
FOR the Office OF Alderman Of the Ninth district and
second, did the plaintn receive the greater number
of votes at SAID election, and would require written
The Court further instructed the jurors that exact
and impartial verdict was expected OF thern ire
spectve OF their personal or political feelings, as
there were higher and more sacred rights involved
IN the than the right OF either OF these parties
the rights OF the people and the maintenance OF the
purity OF our political system or elections. sealed
verdict was tnen ordered to be rendered this morn
ing.
After the court was adjourned, but before the au-
dience had lett the room, offers were made by some
oi the parties present TO bet hats that the verdict
would be for the defendant.