Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-01-27

the Telator has wrongfully caused to Issue
in this case, restraining him from doing 30,
Respondent further states that by
means Of the said Injunction restraining
this respondent from the performance Of
his official duties, the said relator is at
tempting to hold, use snd usurp the said
Office contrary to law, and in gross viola
ton of the rights ofthis respondent.
Respondent further states that the re-
latOr was indicted into the Office of Sheriff
of Shelby county on the 18th day Of
March, 1853, as will appear by reference
&c the records of the County Commits
s~ioners; that under the Constitution OF
Tennessee the official term of the Sherih
Is limited to tDO years.; that the official
term of the said relator expired on the
10th day Of March, 1870; and that the
Office of Sheriff Of Shelby county was va
cant from that date until the induction OF
this respondent into said Office, on the
18th April, 1870; and that the acts Of the
said relator as such pretended Sheriff are
null and void, as respondent is informed
and believes, and being null and void,
they render insecure the rights OF the
whole people OF the county, so far as those
rights may depend upon the acts Of a
Sheriff.
Respondent, further answering, says
that he knows nothing Of the writ OF
mandamus alleged 10 have been sued out
by the relatOr to compel the Justices Of
the Shelby County Court to induot rela-
tor into said Office.
Respondent denies that the possession
of the certificate Of the election Of relstOr
to the Office OF Sheriff Of Shelby county
has been fraudulsntly, %corruptly, and
through bribery, caused to be withheld
from the said relatOr by the said s. Fl.
Shock intriguing and cOnniving with this
F---I - 49, a. IL
tor out Of his Tighta. Every allegation
of law, official duty, or the rights of Tels-
tor in the issuance Of the certificate Of
election to respondent, is met by a square
and emphatic denial. Stronger language
is not employed in meeting these grave
and groundless charges, because imprOp-
or in an answer.
Respondent denies tn 1t his qualification
and induction into Office is null and void
in law, and AYERS that the same is valid
and binding in law. Respondent denies
that the official functions, power, author
ity and jurisdiction OF the said Shock
with regard to the said election ended
with a hurried, inaccurate and
comparison of the polls of the said cleo
ton and the making out certificates of
election which he never delivered because
Of the errors and Inaccuracies of the said
first and hurried comparison of the said
polls. Respondent states that the func-
lions and official duties of the said Shock
compelled him to compare the polls Of
said election accurately and correctly and
issue certificates to the parties who were
elected; that the said Shock did
carefully make an accurate comparison of
the. said polls and made out a corrected
statement of the result OF that
comparison, which he filed as an amended
in the County Court, which was
UpOn the records of said Court.
Respondent further states that the said
Shock had q perfect right to destroy or
his duty to so change them as to cor
rect any errors that he may have discOv-
cred and make his certificate correspond
with the truth of the case.
RespOndent denies that the official
iuty of the said Shock was complete
ended on the tWenty-eighth OF March, |
10 far as certifying to said election was
concerned; denies that all subsequent
action of the said Shock, including the
ssuBnce of respondents certificate of
,~lecticn, was null and void in law and OF
10 effect; denies that said County Court
vas in duty bound to induct r~elator;
lenies that the induction of respondent
null and void because of any
eturns made to, or records in said
curt, or for any other reason; de-
lies that relatOr is entitled to said office,
nd AYERS that respondent is entitled to
he same; denies that he is attempting to
eizs and usurp the same, but being Ie-
ally elected and qualified ne proposes
nd insists upon holding and performing
be duties Of the same.
Respondent having fully answered the
Legations and charges in said informa-
on contained; denied all fraud and all
be equity in said information contained,
rays that the injunction heretofore
rAnted be dissolved, and that he be dis
Kissed with his reasonable costs, etc.
OF TENNESSEE,
SHELBY COUNTY.
Personally appeared before me, NJ. D.
/. Stewart, Clerk of the Shelby Circuit
curt, on this day, Marcus j. Wright,
le respondent In the foregoing answer,
no made oath, in due form Of law, that
10 facts stated in said answer are true to
le best OF his knowledge, information
ld belief. MARCUS J. WRIGHT.
Sworn to and subscribed before me-,
pril Is, 1870.
NJ. D. L. STEWART, Clerk,
By B. F. COLEMAN, D. Q.
Randolph proposed to offer proof for
side, upon which a discussion
Ose. The counsel for General Wright
ould not consent to admit proof with
It argument. During the cross fire that
sued, the Court adjourned to 10 o'clock {
is morning. y