New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-23
SATURDAY, MAY -, is a..
Supreme Court.

supreme Court.
In. following decision, by Chief Justic
L.cdeilDg, was rendered on Monday, and a
'aliatEact published in Tuesdays REpUI
yam The reasons of the court in refusip
"a declare the election in Carroll paris
Legally conducted and, therefore, void
having attracted much attention, the opi1
!G1 is published in extenso:
NO. SOL. Nicholas Barton ct al. VS.
{. harlcs Hicks ct al. appellants Iron
thirteenth Judicial District. A motion +,
'E!siuIss this appeal has been made ON tn,
SraGud that the certificate to the transcript
Z s7gned by the deputy clerk.
TIE motion is refused for the foilowiu
REASONS:
q. because the motion was not filed within
tnree judicial days after the return day
IL An, 81; ~ An, 1911; - An, 976: 20 An
-; u An, 800; II An, 5i5; II. s., 81.
>. Because defect in a certificate would
le no cause to dismiss an appeal. the fault
being attributable to the officer whose duty
u is to make the certificate. Il. s., sec. 30.
=. Because deputy clerk is IN officer
Known to the law, and he is authorized to
slgl certificates. G.: p, 1872; 3 An, pa;
Downs VS.. Washington, - La. 80; Bank of
Louisiana vs.. Watson.
ON THE MERITS
Seven persons who were candidates upon
Nicholas Burton, for sheriff; M. Dubose, for
Parish judge; and David King, e. Z. Shear
or, jackson Smelling. Henry Price and John
Holloway, for police jurors, instituted rhs
ag1it against the persons who were candi-
dates for SAID Offices on the other ticket, at
tl1e election in Carroll parish in November
last.
They allege that the election was null
and void because of the various IRREGULAR
lies and illegalities in the appointment of
commissioners to hold the election in the
manner Of holding ii, and frauds committed
by the commissioners ut the different pre-
c1Rcts, and the acts Of other persons inter
Gated IN the election. in violation of the
statutes of the State and of the United
states, known as the enforcement act, as
follows, to wit: That the commits sioners
we're not selected from the different poll
teal parties, nor were they of good stand
lngj that said commissioners did not take
The oath prescribed by law. nor did they
examine the ballot boxes before cox meme
iug to receive votes; that the election in
ward No. j was not held at the proper
place; that the election in said ward was
acid in small room away from the public |
giew of the voters, and large number of
'he ballots or votes cast in said ward were
not placed in view of the voters, nor taken |
from their hands by the COMM ssiOners re |
oeiving the ballots.
That the commissioner (Jacksonl who re. |
ceived the ballots was seen to change sew |
eEai ballots placed in his hands and deposit |
N the box tickets other than those handed |
Nam by the voters. That Cain Sartain,
candidate, cast several different ballots at
said election, at said precinct. That the
ally sheets of the votes cast at said cleo
20u were not closed and signed by SIX
. clock the day following the election That
the same were changed after six o'clock on
sid day, and made different from what
hey were first made up after the election.
hat neither the tally sheets nor ballot box
obtaining ballots cast at SAID precinct have
leen deposited in the Office OF the clerk of
he district court, although Daniel Jackson,
'ae of the commissioners, Is himself clerk
II said court.
They further charge irregularities and
raud at the other precincts of the parish,
md pray that the election be declared null
md void; and they further pray that should |
he court decide that the election held at
gards Nos. and ) was valid notwithstand
~ the irregularities and fraud complained
{, and that the election was null and void
{ all the other precincts, that in that event
hey be declared elected to the yarious
ices for which they were candidates
hhe defendants severally filed exceptions
tating that there was an improper joind der
( plaintiffs and defendants, that several
iiferent plaintiffs were claiming different
ioss fnrther nIso5 that thn a so sun.
..tbnpt ;rr;s5;nt;nr ,'n.' no oouil was
,rtain the amir "a to his "t,;na - ~ en-
sr;sh ;ndye. and tina conS;do.a. e una a.:
rrv severaiiv nleaded 70 the ;nu;sd Az pu,ice
"a corrt because Tho o,nnI, J,,s.o.io. VI
flee did not exceed $500. These excep- 4
ons were overruled. On the trial, the de /
!, aiianSa tom inrors nnJer ,ta ~. :. TO ~
ma was denied them and tbev to AZ VI 49, IT,
rcent;ons 70 tbe rnl;nr If i w ,oOn uiia VI !
rnIatad tbat several nla;ut;@s oiei oon y
t4arent offices conId mira r. hr;nn nras
ya;,st ssvaral dafendants II ia n,.n;sat !.
ON The OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES japgsaca of thn Ia