The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-11-17
THE ELECTION CONTEST.
sswmnuns, sr TINE CASE YESTERDAY
nErOWE JUDGE Raa4HFOR.

Yesterday morning, ut II O'Clock. the Sixth
District Court was opened, and Judge Rlghtor
srepared himself to listen to the arguments
III The counsel in the famous contest cases.
and to decide whether tho Injunction. MS
prayed for III the petition, should be granted
or refused This case h the "conteAt case
for the Administrator Of Police, Pierce claim
ing that he, the nominee for the said position
on the Citizens ticket, was frauduleptly
counted out, and that F. Meallie, o. Democrat,
was counted In In his stead
At half past 10 o'clock the courtroom, OUT
side Of the railing, WIS crowded with about
200 persons eager to hear the arguments Of
the lawyers and burning with lmpatience 10
know tho decision Of Judge Rightor In the
matter. Inside of the railing, some standing,
others sitting before the attorneys table, were
~ number Of distinguished lawyers, not In
any why engaged to defend or prosecute In
the case but who were present for the sole
PURPOSE OF looking and listening. At IL
o'clock. as already said, tho court opened,
and. after the reading Of the minutes and
the disposal Of o. few unlmportant rules and
exceptions, Judge Rightor ordered recess
until IL o'clock, as some Of the lawyers In
the contest CASE were not yet ready TO
appear.
PROMPTLY AT - O'ObOOK
Judge Rlghtor again took his seal and called
Che case Of VIM. Pierce w. p. Menllie, the
counsel on both sides being MI present and
rendy for the argument. The lawyers were:
For plaintiff. g. zaoharie, q. IT, Walker
end T. A. Flanagan; for defendant Howard
McCaleb. Coy. Albert VOORHEES,. Hon. Il. Il.
Jonas and Frank McGloln.
The argument for plaintiff was begun by
Mr., zacharie. After fully stating the nature
OF the case and the grounds upon which the
Injunction was prayed for, MI. hacharie
port his allegations, and showed that the
Sixth District Court wns authorized BY law,
(aection 5. not No. 81, extrh session Of 1877, MS
well as the district courts, except the Second
District Court, to TAKE cognizhnGe Of the mat
ter ut issue and grant the Injunction.
ID. II. M'uAbEB,
Of counsel for defendant, next spoke. He 10.
ferred to tho famous cHse of Kellogg VS.. Mo
Emery before judge Durell, which case, he
sad alleged almost similar grounds as the
petition at bar but which, however. differed
In this particular that it was filed with 30, 600
cross marked ai1idavilE, while this petition is
supported by the simple oath Of one man
alOns
I'm tho present suit" continued Tho orator,
"the simple oath Of one man Is presumed TO |
be Of more consideration than Tho oaths of
three or four hundred sworn officers CT the |
law, men who have taken solemn obliga- |
tion to do their duty. Then, 10 " possible
that petitioners allegations, basod upon hear |
say-for he could not evidently be In oil the
polls at tho same tfme-can the oath OF ono |
fuan alone be deemed established upon SUN. |
Client grounds to grant the injunction prayed |
for Why II this application be granted the
docket Of the court viii be flooded with vast |
number of similar suits filed by defeated can |
didates, and the whole machinery Of the olty !
government, will, by the slow process Of i'll |
Junction suits, be delayed for ut least two |
niciphl office by the Injunction process, but |
the proceeding must be under tho writ OF quo |
qpn4TGnto fSee revised statutes under the |
head of quo 1dnfrnnf0.)
JUDGE ALBERT VOORHEES,
Of counsel for defendant, followed, and or
gued whether under III application for an in |
junction the newly elected and duly elected |
Administrators can be prevented from taking |
their seats.
The learned oounsel's argument was very
showed that the plaintiff had no cause of 90
tion, and that tho injunction, II granted. |
would cause the court to overstep iH iurls- |
dctlon by encruaching on the Legislative de- |
parttnent OF the State, as there ls no lhw to |
warrant the proceeding by Injunction 10 pro- |
vent municipal or corporate officers from |
taking their seats, but that tho truo remedy |
Ia by tho writ OF quo 1rdfrhnto. !
MIR. nj GLOIN
then followed, and made u lengthy and ex-
halstivp address for defendant. supporting
his argument by q large number Of authori |
ties
HON H. r. JONAS.
who WINS engaged by the defense, also oontri- |
buted In bis eloquent way, and by his learned
and deep legal knowledge, to tho almost GER
taln success of the cause OF tho Democratic |
party.
When Mr. Jonas had concluded, 1t being al
ready clock, tho court took tho arguments |
on tho Injunction under ndvsement. and |
stated that 1t would give its decision as soon
as possible.
The court then adjourned.