Huntsville gazette., 1882-04-15
The Election Cases.

Jury Drawn.
Although the election cases were
set for Monday. but few people be-
sieved that they would be tried. Con-
trary to expectation, when the case Of
the q. s. vs.. Jos T. M9Gehee and
Dan. @. Clark was called, no dila-
tory proceedings occurred. A Jury
was empandeled as follows /:
A. S. Fletcher. Frank Hicks, G. NJ
Bell, R. O. McNett, John Netherlatd
A. j. Cooper, Newton F. Morton, Y.
P. McClung. W. E. Matthews, E. ;
Spragins, Chris. Mcdonald, Dillah
Bean. f. st;s...5
The defendants we're represented BY
Gen. Walker, Humes, Gordon and
Sheffey, Brandon and Cooper, and
Daniel Coleman. Capt. L. Day and
Paul L. Jones assisted District At
torney w. II. Smith in conducting
the case for the Government.
Defendants were indicted for vic.
lating the election law in rejecting Ger.
tain ballots while serving as inspect.
ors at ths Huntsville box in the Con
gressional election OF 1880.
The frat and only witness exam
ined was Mr.. Nicholas Davis, who
served as an inspector with the de-
fendants. He testified that II ballots
we're rejected-61 for Lowe and 10
for Wheeler That they we're rejected
as they, the inspectors. believed in
conformity to the Alabama statute re-
quiring the ballots to be on white pa
per, not more than 5 inches long and
% inches wide, and to contain moth
ing but the names Of the Offices and
of the candidate or candidates voted
for, having on it no figures, devices.
embellishments or characters. The
ballots were rejected unanimously.
The witness was cross-examined.
The Government rested its case
with this evidence. The defense an
neunced that it had no evidence to
offer. and through Gen. Walker re-
quested that the case be mol pressed.
This unexpected action Of the defense
took. Governments counsel by sur
prise, and, at the request Of Governor
Smith, an adjournment was made to
Tuesday, to allow time to get together
authorities and prepare arguments.
Tuesday the case was argued by
the District Attorney and Paul l..
Jones, E-q., for the Government, and
Messrs. Cooper and Coleman for the
defendants.
Special Attorney Jones, in his con-
cluaing argument. pointed !out the
conflict of the Stale with the National
election law, showing that, by the SUI
perior law, the rejected ballots were
legal. Although the defendants might
be adjudged innocent Of any moral
wrong if in rejecting the ballots they
were doing what they deemed their
duty under the State law, still they
were technically guilty as indicted ae
cording to the National law. 1t was
a question of law for the Court to de
eide and not.the"Jury.
Judge Bruce charged the Jury in
reference to the law and the evidence.
His Instructions We're that, according
to the law as expounded, if they be-
lieved the evidence, they must return
q verdict OF guilty.
The pointed charge of the Judge
created c0mmotion in the crowded
court room. Defendants attorneys
made protests and a juryman was
heard to say, "We will be our own
udge as to the law and the evidence" :"
About ten minutes after retiring
the Jury returned with q verdict Of
:" Not guilty. The defendants were
discharged and an order made by the
Court discharging the Jury for the
term. for returning verdict at vari-
ance with the Instructions of the Court.
By order Of the Court a new Jury
was drawn, and Monday set for taking
up the remaining election cases.
The following are the names drawn
for the new Jury:
Thos. H. Bayles, j.. A. Brown, Reu-
ben Jones, c., Lockhart Bibb, VIM. S.