The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-06-21
DECISIONS DISASTER.
he has to Change His Boarding
House.
YESTERDAYS PROCEEDINGS.

4ESIEhDA . IROOGCDANOO'
CONCLUSION OF JUDGE CLAYPooL's AReo-
MBNT-REsIDESCE-wH CONSTITUTES
PERJURY-CHARGING THE JURY.
In the Dickson trial yesterday morning
Judge Claypool briefly recapitulsted his argu-
nnents of the evening before, and then pro-
,,aeded to a review of the arguments for de-
Tense and the evidence in the case. As tend
ane To show that there was COLLISION to COM
NIT q fraud he dwelt particularly on
the fact that Mrs. hmoer ano
Pugh and his family were gone ana c0ulo not n.
ma found. IL is doubtless true that Pugn uls-
charged Kimber, but the facts are, anu you
can not doubt IL, that the discharge was
mere pretense; the quarrel ana Tbe az %
Tense asks you for verdict on what Is proven:
but you must take all the circumstance, an8
the unfortunate condition OF affairs oy wnlcn men
Pngh and his vile and his daughters are lost
to the community must ee tasen as s I sslI
that Ppgh was acuH iagfeS wi Was Rim6er
a voter in the Fourth WARD
Had he a residence there? Dld ne
stances all go to show that the man INTENDED
to stay there. Again, did DICKSON KNOW Ihs'
Kimber had not come there 10 TesloSI ~ mS.
tiers little whether he did or not. he sw %Pe
that Kimber was resident, and 10 excuse DIM
from perjury he must prove that ne knew ,ha az
he come to stay. But IL we are Iequlreu W
prove that he knew that
KIMBER HAD NOT CHANGED HIS RESIDENCE,
vesubmit that we have sbundantly proved
1t. Dickson swears that he knew Kimber
when he lived with his COUSIN Williams; and
Kimber swears that he never lived with his
cousin. II Kimber swears truly, then Dickson
never knew that he had residence
there and he never did have resi-
cnmstances under which Kimber came
hunting for he house Il which DICKSON says
he once lived corroborstes kimoer,s evidence;
Is 1t not reasonable to suppose that II he had
had q residence there he would have nown III
when he came back, and 1t would have been
unnecessary for him 10 nave mace any lnqul-
-ries? The law IL, as stated by the defense, tnat
when a man acquires a residence IL is pre-
sumed that the residence con Inues until II is
that Kimber left there in the fall of 1874, and
he did not know when he went This fact is
q strong presump tion, at least, II not positive
proof that Dickson knew that Kimber was
not a resident OF the ward DICKSON knew
Kimber well, and must have known that he
was not a resident of the ward. When he
came 10 Dickson he said that he had come In
to find work. Hedid not declare any intention
T On s'aS 10 u LIZ And work Come in-from
where? From the country, where his resi-
rdence was. he defense says that when, at the
time Ktmber's vote was challer ged, he said
that he was a voter and resident, that fixed
mis- residence. II that was the law what is the
use Of having any body to swear In vote?
man only needs to say that he as voter, In
order to make him voter, still 1t Is In evil
dence tha' Kimber said he did not care much
about voting, for he didn't know whether he
had a right TO vote or not But Dicks n said
he had known X lmber for two or three years,
and he guessed he could put him through.
When cautioned 10 be careful, he said
BE KNEW HIS BUSINESS.
But give you the exact words of defendant
himself Bring in your sworn reporter, gen.
flemen OF the defense quote from the notes
of our stenogTapher, and Dickson said he did
not know particularly that Kimber was
resident of the Fourth ward: he only knew
that he was q resident of Indiana. He knew
him well, and he knew that he had no resi-
dence in the Four h wsrd, but he did know
that he lived In the country. he had educa-
ted himself up to the belief that 1t was only
work, stay day or tv o, and that would con-
stitute legal residence; but be says he knee
that Kimber did not live in the ward. and Il is
for you to say, gent emen or the Jury, whether
an oath made under such circumstances Is
perjury. Ii one party may keep boarding
houses for such vo ing cattle, the other party
may, and IL is for " u to say Whether this shall
become the RUE; 10 is for you 10 say whether
we are to have honest elections We have
made the strongest possible case against this
defendant; we have proved his crime, and II
you acquit him you throw open the doors
ton of which party can board ibe
most voting cattle. onvic: him, punish him
and predict that future elecd' ms will be hon
estly cond ucted. Mr.. FtShback raid some
thing about tsckliDg poor ignorant negro.
regret that we could not have caught the
man whose tool he is, but his tracks are COW
cred up, and we can reach only his agent.
don't want him punished much His ignor-
ance of the law will not excuse him, but IL
will be a circumstance in mitigation OF pun
1shment. The speaker closed with an earnest
-appe Ito the jury to enfoi ce the laws and to
preserve the purtt, of elections.
CHARGING TIE JURY.
In charging the jury Judge Truman first
read the indictme Mt, and said that by aban-
donment of certain allegations on the part of
the state defendant was indicted for perjury
4 \, q 81,
Fourth ward, when, in fact, he was not. The
state asked and the court instructed as to the
qualification of voters, reading the law on
the subject, and then as To residence. Resi-
dence is the being in given place with the
Intention OF making IL ones home. AS gen.
eral rule, where a man is the head of
a family and is housekeeper, the dom
1cl OF the family is presumed 20 be his legal
not change residence. 10 gain residence In
an election preclnct a man must remove and
there permanently, or at least for an indefi-
mite length of time. Upon the question OF
residence, evidence of the conduct or declara-
ton of the party, afterwards as wei as before,
may be received TO asceI tain mis- intention ON
particular Day. The word leone" L nearly
synonymous with the word "domicile" or res.
idence." But the Intention &c acquire DOM
1cile or residence in a particular place is not
sufficient, without removal add location In
that place. The general laws OF the state pre-
scIibiDg the manner and form of holding cleo
lions, lad the qualifications of voters, are APP
plicable To CT elections. Was william i
Ripley, the person by whom IL is charged 10
the Indictment the oath to the affidavit, oath
and statement set forth in the Indictment,
was administered TO defendant, duly aud
legally appointed and quslihed Judge
of the board elections In the Fourth
ward of said city at said election ?
Ills the business OF the court to tell you what
THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE
before you proves, and in this connection the
court instructs you that the records from the
Common Council of the city of indianapolis
show that the apportionment Of the city into
wsrds, and the action of the council about the
18th OF April was legal and valid, and the cleo
ton held last May, in the Fourth ward, is not
illegal by reason OF anything shown in said
proceedings OF the Common Council III Ii was
the intention OF Kimber TO return to the
country In the event that he could not get