Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1874-03-05

terworth, Burton, Corwin, Curtis,
Goodhue, Hathaway, Jones, Knox,
Lawrence, Philson, RukenbrOd, Wad-
die, Yeoman-15.
Nays-Messrs. Andrews, Buell., Ellis,
Ferrall, Fisher, Hudson, Kerr, Laugh
lin, Morris, Newman, Potter, Paul,
Reid, Reese, Seitz, Sherman, Shep-
herd, Thompson, Tressler, Worthing-
ton-20.
So the motion was not sustained.
Mr.. McSweeny, in behalf of the coz
testee, filed an exception to this decis-
ion of the Senate for the reasons stated
in the motion objecting to the jurisdic-
tion of the Senate in the case.
The witnesses for the contestor, Mr..
WeimeT, having been called, Mr.. Kin
ney opened the crse for the contestor,
by briefly stating that his claim was
that Mr.. WeiEier had received IL
larger number of legal votes tor
Treasurer of State than Mr.. Welsh.
Mr.. J. S. Jones, of Delaware, of coun-
sci for cOnteStee, said their claim was
that Mr.. Welsh had been legally elect
ed to the office of State Treasurer, and
entered into specification of votes in
certain election precintS which had not,
but should have been counted for Mr..
Welsh.
The witnesses for the contestor were
then called and sworn.
Mr.. Kinney then proceeded to examine
as witness for cOntestOr, David f.
Donaldson, of Liberty township, Clin-
ton county, who said he was clerk at
the last October election in his town
ship, and had with him the tally sheets
then and there made out.
At this point, Mr.. Jones for the con-
testee objected to this testimony, on
the ground that it did not relate to any
specification in the notice to the COLI
tesfee filed by the contestor in this case.
Mr.. Kinney, for contestor, argued
that it was competent tor Mr.. Weimer
to prove that he had received Votes suf-
gcient to elect him Treasurer of State,
under the specification in his notice
that he had received more votes than
Mr.. Welsh.
Mr.. McSwecney, for contestee, insist
ed that no testimony was competent as
to votes cast at the election in any par
ticular locality, unless specially speci-
fed in the notice of contest.
The President ruled that the testi-
mony sought to be adduced as to the
election ir Liberty township, Clinton
county, could not be rocived under the
notice filed by the contestor.
Mr.. Kinney asked leave TO amend
the notice filed by the contestor so as to
specify elections in precints not men,
toned therein-a list of which addi-
tional specifications he read.
Tho Draoidnnf pitfal fn tho San-
ate the question as to whether the
counsel on each side should be allowed
one hour in which to argue the ques-
tion as to whether the application of
the contestor for leave to amend the
specifications in his notice should be
granted. 1t was decided in the affirm
ative-yeas Is, nays II.
After a brief argument by Mr.. Jones
in opposition to granting leave TO
amend, on motion of Mr.. Reid the case
was continued till P. NJ. tomorrow.
Mr.. Worthington offered a resolu-
tion to amend the journal by striking
out and excluding therefIom all notice
of the exception or protest filed by the
contestee to the decision of the Senate
in overruling the c0ntestee'S plea to the
Jurisdiction of the Senate in the con-
tested case. The resolution was adopt
90, nays 10.
The application of the contestor for
leave to amend his notice to the con-
testee by adding additional .specifica-
tions, being open for argument, Mr.. T.
J. Duncan, of Columbus, counsel for
contended that, both by stat
ute and common law, they were enti-
tied to leave to amend, and cited au-
thorities in support of his position.
Mr.. J. S. Jones, for contestee, insist
that, as the jurisdiction in the case be-
fore the Senate was derived from stat
ute, and not from common law, no
leave to amend, by introducing new
matter, could be granted.
Mr.. McSweney, on the same side, al.
gued that, as the statute required the
contestor, within ten days after the
meeting of the General Assembly next
after the election, to file with the
Clerk of the Senate, Il notice of contest
with the points relied on, it was now
sought to evade or avoid the statute
by obtaining leave to specify such
points, long after the time prescribed
by statute for such filing had expired.
The object of giving notice with the
points specified was to give the contes-
tee warning of the matter he would
be called upon to meet, and prevent his
being taken by surprise. The granting
of leave to introduce new points after
the time of giving notice had expired,
would be in effect fraud upon the
the contestee.
Mr.. r. Z. Ranney, OF Cleveland, on
behalf of the application to amend was
to make more specific what had been
stated generally in the notice, namely:
that the contestOr had received ma
jority of the votes cast for State Treas
urer. The object of an election con-
test was to canvass again the votes cast,
and ascertain who has received the
majority of legal votes. 1t was claim
ed by Mr.. Ranney that under the stat
ute passed at this session regulating
election contests, the Senate had am
pie power to grant the leave to amend
if such leave would, in its opinion, CON
duce to the ends of justice and to the
ascertainment of the truth as TO which
of the contending parties had the lar
ger number of votes at the last October
election. There was everything in the
general statement referred TO neceSSa-
ry to amend by; all that was needed
was to make it more specific and to
particulariZe. 1t had been the rule in
our courts for more than forty years, in
accordance with the universal seilti-
ment OF the community, that Justice
shall not be entrapped and its ends
frustrated by mere technicalities.
Hence, the allowance nf amendments
to make more specific that which had
been stated generally.
After Mr.. Ranney had concluded the
vote was taken on the question as to
whether the contestor, Weimer, should
have leave to amend his notice ofcon-
test, and resulted:
Yeas-Messrs. Andrews, Buell., Ellis,
Ferrall, Fisher, Hudson, Kerr, Laugh
lin, Morris, Newman, Potter, Paul,
Reid, Reese, SeitZ, Sheridan, Shep-
herd, Thompson, Tressler-19.