The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-06-25
THE CONTESTED ELECTION.
Special Responses Of the Jefferson
2 Ward Council and Magistrates.
M OTION TO STRIKE OUT.
Argument Of Blr. Maury.

AT the opening of the court yesterday
MIR. Neeson presented the response of Fl.
4. Ellyson and others to the complaint of
the contested election In the city of Rich
moDd. This response was published in the
Dispatch of yesterday except the following
concluding paragraph: ers. .s..st Ill. j.
"These respondents are ready to MAIN
tain the allegations herein contained by
due legal evidence, to be adduced in such
mode and manner, and upon such time and
notice as the nature of the case and the
order of the court shall require.
Fl. K. ELLYsoN, . ..
"THoMAs U. DUDLEY, and others, .n
~. SPY counsel.
"June q, 1870" ~ ..-
Mr.. Maury asked that before the response
be filed the court require it to be verified
by affidavit.
Mr. Neeson: The law does not require
it, but ifthe gentleman desires it we will
crafty him at once.
The Court It is understood, then, that
the affidavit viii be made hereafter.
RESPONSE OF THE JEFFERSON WARD coUE-
CILMEN ELECT.
Judge Crump here remarked that for OBJ
yious reasons the councilmen elect for JEFF
ferson Ward had thought fit to make q
separate response; which he read as fol-
lows:
" To the Hastings Court Of the City Of Rich
r1ond 49,. IF
"The undersigned, duly elected Council
men and magistrates OF Jefferson Ward,
who have been cited to answer said COM
plaint, challenge and deny the right of the
said parties to harass them by q summons
founded upon a complaint which they had
no legal right to make. The undersigned
do not admit that the complainants are
voters qualified according to the 69th sec,
ton of the law regulating elections ana
prescribing the mode Of contesting the
election of said corporation, township, OF
district officers, but allegc, on the contrary,
that the said complainants do not
possess the qualifications required by sald
section and the general law regulating cleo
tions, and they demand such proof OF the
rights of said complainants, or Of fifteen OF
them, to cite them before this honorable
court. And the undersigned ask the ludg-
ment of this court upon the right of Mitch
ell and others to prefer said complain,
against them, and that if it shall be found
that the said compliments had no lega,
right under the said Goth section to me sald an
complaint and cito tho undersigned TO aii,
swer the same, that your honor WILL disiniss
the said complaint. s. ,,,. -
/" And thus protesting against the right OF
said Mitchell ct ais. to Complaining under,
signed. if it shall be held that the said
Mitchell ct ais. have such right, now pro-
ceed to answer the allegations OF said COM
plant. They deny each and every alleSa-
tion of the same touching the duty OF the
commissioners as to the supposed returns
from precinct No. 8 of Jefferson Ward,
and ailece that there were no legal re-
turns from said precinct. They. further
allege that at the supposed electlon helo
at said precinct, there were large num-
Der of fraudulent and Illegal votes cast lor
the councilmen and magistrates VINO are
alleged in said complaint to have been
S30. and at precinct No. 1, II; No. 3, A;
No. 4, 81 and this they arc ready to verify,
and they respectfully ask reasonable time to
furnish proof of such illegal and fraudulent
votes so cast as aforesaid at said precincts.
Signed. John NJ. HIaGINs,
"JoHN Il. GREAEoB,
..-". rs. G. FLoURNoY,
"J. c. SMITH, . .
"L. HARVEY,
Councilmen from Jefferson Ward.
"WM. j. HOLMES,
"SoLoMoN WISE,
81. J. BROWN,
- ManlsLTllCS cCuSA3ohA " ~
SPECIAL RESPONSE OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ATTORNEY ELECT.
Colonel johnson then presented tne iol-
lowing special response OF George " Hlse'
elected Commonwealth's attorney
"And the said respondent, George u.
Wise, in addition to the matters and things
above set forth by himself and others, ul-
leges, specially, that the said l.: IL: Chan-
| dler named in said complaint and alleged TO
have been elected Commonwealth's attor-
ney, is and was not elegible to said Office
because, he SAYS, that said Chandler was
not at the date of said election and is not
now legal voter or resident Of said city,
| and this lie is ready to verify" r.,
MOTION TO STRIKE OUT. a-s
MIR. Maury, on behalf of the complainants,
said he proposed to take issue with certain
allegations and facts, ETC., contained IN the
| response, and moved to strike out certain
portions thereon.
WHO ABE THE REsP0 NsIBLR PARTIES.
Judge Crump asked that before proceed
| ing with the discussion proposed that II be
distinctly understood who are the paTties,
| plaintiff and defendant. BE inquired, there.
| fore, who were the parties on whose Dehall
| the learned counsel take ISSUE.
Mr.. Maury said that the parties whom he
and his associates represented were fifteen
or more qualified voters, influenced by no
personal considerations or considerations, OF
| pelf. and whose complaint, now On llle'
asks that Il great wrong be riShted.
| Judge Crump thought his inquiry had
been misunderstood by the counsel. were
these fifteen or more voters TO De response
hje for costs, &C., or were they afterwards
| TO step aside and be superseded by the can
| didates whose claims are SET forth III the
complaint?
Judoe Ould said their view of the matter
was that the Fifteen" were the parties
complainant, and that the candidates re-
ferred to are only collaterally parties to the
proceeding. The former are at present the
onIy parties. They are to be kept before the
court until the case is concluded, ana WILL
| be responsible for the costs.
| Judge Crump had understood the opinion
| of the court to be that the complaint Of the
| fifteen citizens was only preliminary to q
contest, the burden of which would tall
upon the candidates. he claimed that the
latter clause of the sixty-ninth section OF
! the election law sustained this view Of the
question. The only object of the names oil
| the fifteen citizens appearing, probably, was
| to- prevent frivolous and YeXatious contests,
| Colonel johnson insisted upon the same
view, and called attention to the TACT that
| the law prescribed that the certificate Of
election be given to the successful party in
the contest. If the view of the other side
| prevailed, and the complainants were sue.
cessful, the certificates must be given to Z
ID. Mitchell and others instead of to George
| Chahoon and others. ...... .
Mir. Maury said it was very plain that i
| decided in favor of complainants the certi
ticates should be given to the candidates
whose claims they urged.
The Court said that, although clear in hi
mind as to the question in point, he woult