The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1879-02-08

challenge peremptorily ten jurors,
and the law declares that MAORI
ty Of the jury is necessary only to
find a verdict. But a contested
election case is to be decided like
all others on the law aud evidence.
Under our law, the manner in which
the elector it to cast his ballot and
signify his choice, is fixed, and III
no other way can the elector or
voter cast his ballot. Polling
places are established and the law
requires that commissioners OF cleo
ton are to be- appointed, TO receive
the ballot, have it deposited in the
box, and after the poll shall be
closed to make true account and
tabulation of the vote. This it
seems was done at the last election.
After which the returns and ballot
boxes containing the ballot are to
be deposited with the clerk of the
court. The clerk shall keep one
copy of commissioners returns,
with the ballot boxes, while a du-
plicate is to be given to the sheriff,
and he is required by law to make
tabulation of the vote of the
whole parish; make out triplicate
returns, one of which, with the
tally sheets and duplicate commits
sioners returns, he is to enclose to
the Secretary of State, another
copy to be filed with the clerk OF
the court, there to remain on file,
and another return of the triphcate
to be forwarded by the clerk OF the
court to the Secretary of State. The
sheriff is required to make proclams
ton of the result at the court house
door, and the Secretary of State,
after inspecting the tabuiation Ut
the sheriff, to compare with the re-
turns of the commissioners of cleo
ton, and a true proclamation OF
the result to make. l charge you
that the proclamation OF the sheriff
and his return, together with the
official PRONUNCIATION OF the Sec,e-
tary of State as to the result of the
election is prima facie true and
correct, that is, it shall be taken
under the law until the contrary be
shown by legal evidence. You are
To determine frat, If the sheriff aud
Secretary Of State have done this.
by the evidence before you. If you
find that such is the case, the de-
PENDANT has the right on the first
showing to hold the office aud the
burden of proof rest on plaintiff to
show clearly, or at least, by pre-
pondersting proof, that the re-
turns of the sheriff and the pro-
mitigation of the Secretary Of State
were not in accordance With the re-
turns of the commissioners Of cleo
ton. / charge you that, unless 1t
be shown that the compilation OF
the commissioners returns, by the
Sheriff and Secretary of State are
wrongfully or frauduiently made,
that you are to receive them as
true, because it is presumed, that
being public officers, under oath,
that they have done thier duty
honestly under the law. But, should
you find under the evidence, tina,
they have been wrongfully or fraud
ulently compiled, then, the next
best evidence is the ballots in the
boxes. II these show that the
commissioners returns and the
sheriffs compilation, are in accord
ancs with the ballots, then it is to
be taken as true until the contrary
be shown. The plaintiff has al
legged fraud in the change Of these
votes. Now. l charge you that
fraud is DOT to be presumed, hut il
must be proven clearly befoie you
are authorized to set aside as true
the compilation of the sheriff Oh
the votes as found end counted il
the boxes. But should you come
to the conclusion, from the evi.
dence, that the b .llots in the boxes
have been fraudulently manipula-
ted and changed, it makes no diff
ference by whom, you are to ex
anime it, and see from the evi
dence if the result of the will o.
the electors has beea 80 falsi6ed
and changed, as to make it appear
that plaintiff has been elected in
stead of defendant. If from the
evidence before you, you come t.
the conclusion that the returns o
the sheriff were false, and the bal
lots have themselves been changed