Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-11-24
OGORMAN

tire Latter's Title to the Office of Sheriff.
Yesterday NJ. Henry O'Gornan. Demo
cratic candidate for sheriff at the late cleo
tien, by his attorneys, Messrs. Ais q Lllis,
fled with the clerk of the district court,
his points upon which he contests the
right of Frederick Richter to the cert; ficate
of election awarded him by the board of
canvassers. setting forth various errors,
mistakes and wrongs, the correction of
which will show him to be legally elected to
the Office The document is as follows:
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
DISTRICT COURT, RAMSEY COUNTY,
Henry O'Gorman VS.. Frederick
Richter
To Frederick Richter. aforesaid:
WHEREAS, At an election lately, to-wit, on
the It'll day of November, 4. D. 1882,
held in said Ramsey county, the SAID
Henry Q7Gorman and the said Frederick
Richter were candidates for sheriff of said
county: and
WHEREAS. The board of canvassers did,
on the 18th day of NOVEMBER, A. D., 1882,
after csnvassing the returns made to the
auditors Office of said election, declare
the said Frederick Richter to have the
highest number OF votes for said Office of
sheriff, and to be duly elected sheriff of
said county: and
WAEREAs, The said Henry O'Go-man
claims and believes, and has good reason
to believe and now alleges that in and
about the counting, canvasslng
and returns of said votes for said office of
sheriff at said election, and in the canvass
ing Of said returns by said board Of can
vassers, numerous errors, mistakes and
wrongs were committed to the prejudice
of said Henry O'Gorman, by reason where
of the said Frederick Richter was declared
duly elected sheriff as aforesaid, whereas in
truth and in fact the said Henry O'Gor-
man did have the highest number of votes
for sheriff and was duly elected said sher-
if, and should have been SO declared. as
will fully appear when said errors, mis-
takes and wrongs are duly corrected; and
WHEREAS, To the end that said errors,
ted and justice and right may be done
in the premises, the said Henry G'Gorman
has duly appealed to the said district court
of said county of Ramsey.
Now, therefore, you, the said Frederick
Richter, are hereby notified that in and by
said appeal, and the proceedings thsreup-
on to be had and taken, your election
to said Office of sheriff of Ramsey county,
declared as aforesaid, will be contested,
and the said court will be asked to adjudge
and declare that you, the said Frederick
Richter, did not receive the highest num-
Der of votes for said office of sheriff at said
election, and were not elected said sheriff,
but that, on the contrary, the said Henry
O'Gorman did receive the highest number
of votes for said Office, and was duly elect
ed thereto; and you are hereby further no
titled that the following are the points on
which your said election will be contested
as aforesaid:
First. That in canvasslng the votes the
judges of election in all the precincts did
not read and announce each ballot for
sheriff separately, and thereupon proclaim
the same to the clerks, as by law required
to do, but in several precincts failed SO to
do, and on several and different occa-
sions, and at divers times, read
and announced large number
of votes together and in the aggregate,
and thereupon in like manner proclaimed
the same to the clerks, but exactly in what
precincts, and to what extent this viola
ton of law was made this contestant can
not set forth with more particularly than
he has herein done, but he believes and
charges that if said errors, mistakes and
wrongs we're duly corrected iti would
appear that this contestant was duly
elected sheriff.
Second. That in each of the precincts
in the canvassing of the votes, many bal
lots on which the name of the said Freder-
lick Richter, did not appear at all, were
nevertheless announced and proclaimed
and counted and returned as votes for said
Richter for sheriff, but exactly how many
such ballots were so counted and returned,
this contestant does not know and cannot
specify, but he AYERS that if said errors,
mistakes and wrongs were duly corrected
it would appear that this contestant was
duly elected sheriff.
Third That in each of the precincts in
the canvassing of the votes, many ballots
on each of which both said Richter and
this contestant were designated for the
Office of sheriff of said county, were an
nounced, proclaimed and counted, and re-
turned as votes for said Richter for sheriff;
bnt exactly how many such ballots were SO
counted and returned this contestant does
MT know and cannot specify, but he AYERS
that if said errors, mistakes and wrongs
were duly corrected, and said ballots were
not counted and returned as votes for said
hlcnlor, NOT as VOuoS IOr UNlS cOuCeSCaut,
according to the provisions of the statute
in such cases made and provided, it would
appear that this contestant was duly
elected sheriff.
Fourth. That IN each of the precincts
votes were duly cast for this contestant for
sheriff, which were not counted or returned
for him, and especially was this the
case in the First precinct of the
Second ward, and in the First pre-
cinct of the Fourth ward, and in the First
precinct of the Fifth ward, and this con-
testant AYERS that the number of votes so
cast, and not counted or recorded as afore-
said, exceeded thirty in the aggregate.
Fifth. That a great number of votes
were returned as having been cast for the
said Richter, for sheriff, than il truth or in
fact SO cast, and that such excess was not
less than thirty votes.
Sixth. That in the canvassing Of the
votes in the Second precinct of the Fifth
ward, the votes for sheriff were not actually
counted that in said canvassing, the bal
lots on which the name of this contestant
app ed, and also tho. q on which ie name
Of Madden, who was candidate for sher-
if at said election, appeared, were selected
from the ballots cast and were counted,
xl~~-