Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1882-06-30
dered his decision rs follows:


In the case entitled J. a. Rupert
VS.. the Board of County Commission
ers Of Alturas county, which has been
on trial before us ut Chambers for
several days, there is but one ultimate
question of fact to be decided. That
question is, whether fraud was COM
mitted on the ballot-box, at the polls
in the town Of Haley, at the election
held on tho 18th day Of September,
1881, for the purpose Of determining
the permanent location Of the seat Of
Alturas county-such as is charged
by the defendants, in their answer.
That answer alleges that, on the
day and at the place stated, some 241
ballots were fraudulently placed in
the box by q person or persons to de-
PENDANTS unknown, and that names
were also surreptitiously put OH the
poll-lists to correspond. Was this
fraud committed? That is the ques-
ton.
1t has been stated, by one of the
witnesses for defendant land names
have been cited to corroboratc the
statement, that there were on that
list few names of persons who had
not voted. But, on the other hand,
it has been proved that nearly all
the persons pointed out in this con
nection were entitled to vote, and
resided in this imm ediate vicinity:
and as the question at issue was one
OF great interest to all'persons living
hereabouts, it is only reasonable to
suppose that all who had the right
to vote exercised that right.
The certified poll and the bal
lots in the box at the Haley polls on
the evening Of the 18th of Septem-
Der, 1881, as certified by three judges
and two clerks Of election, show that
m ballots were cast in the town of
Haley on that day. The defendants
attempt to impcach this return, and
in support produced lly-lists kept
by Messrs. McIrvine, Ruick and Per-
ry, OH the outside of the place where
the polls were located.
1t rs also claimed that, for some
days prior to the election plan had
been arranged to commit the fraud
since charged to have been commit
ted. In order to substantiate the al
legation referred to, it was shown in
evidence that, two or three days be-
fore the day of election one Banfield
met George w. Cranston, told him
that he had been selected as one of
the Judges of election, and that he
must not watch things too closely.
But Mr.. Cranston, who was put on
the stand by the attorneys for the
defense, testified that Mr.. Banield's
remark put him on his guard 80 that
he paid especial attention to every
thing that was done, and that he did
not see any fraud committed.
Leon Fuld, another Of the Judges.
testified that on the evening before
the election George NJ. Parsons in
formed him that he (Fuld) was to
be one Of the Judges; but Mr. Fuld
stated positively that not a word
was spoken to him to urge him to
act contrary to law. This does not
tend to prove preconcerted plan to
commit fraud.
Another fact upon which the de
Tense sought to base its allegation of
fraud was that the polls were opened
on the north side of Bullion street,
instead of the south side, as ordered
by the County Commissioners. But
it is in evidence that on the morning
of the election, Mr.. Oldham refused
to permit his building to be used as
a polling place, and some other place
had to be secured. This the 4O-odd
electors who were present at the
time when the polls should have
been opened, decided should be in
an unoccupied building located at
about the same distance north of
Bullion street that the place origin
ally designated was south. 1t had
also been attempted to show that
this polling place was dark, but that
was disproved. The evidence showed
that the only covering to the house
was canvas roof, that there were
open spaces between the upright
planks that formed the sides Of the
building, which were not battencd,
and that both gable ends were open
so that the inside of the polling
place was practically as light as day.
This certainly does not prove that
there was an attempt to commit
fraud at the ballot-box.
1t was claimed by the defendants
that the circumstances detailed, al
though they did not prove fraud
when considered separately, yet,
when tai zen rs whole, that they
tended to prove plan as alleged.
But the rule by which evidence is
weighed is the reverse of this. Cir
cumstances having no weight to es-
tablish fraud Of themselves cannot
be held to establish fraud as a whole.
There is another rule in regard to
1,ilouoo -, oocoo ~ rro.l