The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1874-01-22
THE CONTEST CASE.
A Decision Rendered by the
Judges.
The Causes of Action Not SuS-
tanned.
NOonlight's Attorneys Give No
tice Of Appeal.
The Friends OF Bond Jubilant
Over the Result.
Full Report OF the Decision as
Given. :.
THE CONTEST CASE.

UlVcus
The District Court room was crowded 10
suffocation yesterday afternoon 10 hear the
decision in the Bond Moonlight contest case.
Precisely at O'Clock the three Judges fled
in and took their seats. When the tumu..
tuous throng had been quoted down, Judge
REESE in firm voice read the decision of the
Court for the contestee. When it was con-
cluded, Judge Sherry, counsel for Mr.. Noon
light, with the view of carrying the case up
to the Supreme Court, gave the following
notice.:
lst. Notice of a motion for a new trial.
2nd. Notice Of a motion of appeal.
3,d. Notice of exceptions to all and sin.
gular of the findings of the law and facts.
The Court allowed three days in which to
file these motions, and one week for a hear
ing and filing of bill of e1 oeptions.
After transac.ing some other business in
cidental to the closing Of the Gaze. the Court
adjourned till Wednesday mex: at 2 O'Clock,
when the motions of the plaintiffs attorney
will be considered.
As the decision of the Judges may interest
many of our readers, we give ii in fall az
follow:
The questions Lere are new in many as
poets; the facts are easy TO be found, but not
so ea-y to apply the law. The courts cannot
pronounce their judgment on the wrong I'M
less the remedy is sought through the proper
channels.
That in this case there is exhibited a &C.
ries of disgusting wrongs that brings the
blush of shame upon the face of honest men,
there is no doubt; yes, acts Of infamy, low,
vile and despicabie, consequent, perhaps,
upon AN untaught element who, uuaccustom.
ed to refined conception Of propriety, have
fancied that their suffrage bought and cold
were legitimate transactions, ard an easier
way of making money than by physical ex-
ertion who have wondered why elections
were 80 far apart, and gave them such rare
opportunities to exercise their talents. And
vet it's but a elimination fastened, one o;
what has been growing evil for an age.
The courts are not law making pOwers;
they can but execute the law that is given,
and in the way and for the use prescribed.
There has been some conflict in the evil
dence. Oae William S Dent was put upon
the stand who, testified that Bond had given
some money for his vote. This was denied
by Bond, who, though party, was Wit
ness on the stand. The character of Dent
has been attacked by contradiction, conflict
ing statements and by proof of reputation
which was met by counter proof Of reputa.
ton. Suspicion hangs around this witness
enough to give the counierac,ing evidence
preponderance. The court has made the
following findings.
j. On the Alb OF November, 1878. Wm.
II. Bond, then a candidate for Sheriff, at
and while the election was proceeding, did
did give to one VIM. S. Dent the sum of one
dollar in money, then and there TO be used
in the procurement of drinks of spirituous
liquors for voters generally, with the intent
to facilitate his, said Bonds, election TO the
office of Sheriff of Leavenworth county.
,. While said VIM. H. Bond was 70
candidate for Sheriff he said Bond did prom
ise to one Tom Bowman s., 90 in money for
purpose Of procuring the services of said Tom
Bowman in canvassing for and soliciting |
Sheriff.
say to Tom Bowman, and other colOred peO- |
pie so far as he could conceive itshould have |
an equal representation upon the juries of
this county with Others and that such prom |
Ire was for the purpose of enhancing his
chances of election.
4. That said Bond after such election did |
al &
10 Bowman & Walker for cigars, drinks ETC.,
drank and used by sundry persons unknown
to said Bond at and before the the time Of
such election.
5. The said Bond at and during such cleo.
ton on the 4th day of November 1878, did
agree to and with one Harrison Young and
one Peter Green, TO psy ouch of them the
sum of 90 for work at the polls on the
day of such election, that so Tor the CANVASS
ing for votes for the purpose of facilitating
his said Bonds election to the Office Of Sheriff
that said Bond did pay to said Walker and
to said Green each the sum of $3.50 thereof
and promised to pay the remainder.
G. That said Bond, while canvassiDg for a
nomination for Sheriff. did have some con-
versation with one Lawrence Kiser in rela-
ton TO the appointment of under sheEiff or
Tailor. And that otter said election, tO-wit:
after the said 4th day of November, 1873,
said Bond, in consideration of kisers assist
ing him in procuring surety on his official
bond, did promise said Kiser the position of
under sheriff or jailor.
Z. That the said Thomas Moonlight. the
is and was, at the time of said
election, an elector of the Second Ward of
he city Of Leavenworth, in the State of
Kansas.
8. The committee do not find that there
vas, in any case, bride or reward given
Dr. offered to any elector, directly, for his
VOte.
9. That said Bond gave to one Lafayette
Collins two dollars for canyassing for votes
or him, said Bond on the said election day,
while he, said Bond, was 90 candidate for
Sheriff.
One witness Carter states that Bond had
,iven him one dollar for his vote but still
ienied that he had sold it) this Bond denies
which makes an equilibrium but il Bonds in
erests initiates against his statement it rails
9 reasonable doubt.
The matter of the license of one Bowman il
ntirely indefinite to make funding on.
The evidence of Pemberton, Mccormack
md Mcdaniel throw no light upon the is
ues here sufficiently important TO elicit find
ngs.
OF the promise Of positions TO Robert
Jackson, Henry Duffy and William Voss,
here is no evidence.
The testimony of Richard Moore, John
Nolan, David Jackson, McAuliff and George
and and of Miller are too indefinite to base
q action of the court upon. and therefore s
eemed not of importance in cur ultimate
To sum up the proceedings of the Court in
hort, they are that the said Bond did, At on
e before such election give and offer to sun
ry electors of Leavenworth county rewards ,
D money, &C., for the purpose of procuring !
he influence, cooperation and labor Of such
lectors in facilita. ing his election and pro-
uring his success in such election.
Does such findings bring the contestee
1ithin the legal construction of the 4th
lauee of the Ssh section of an act entitled,
An Act to Regulate Elections" which is as
pillows: "When the contes,ee has given or
fered an elector, or any judge, clerk or
anvasser of the election any bribe or reward
n money, property, or thing of value, for
be purpose Of procuring his election" =
All words in 4 statute assume technical .
nd legal meaning according to their connec- !
ion and the purposes for which they are
sed. Statutes that impose puLishment =
re penal. and are to be construed in stricfi