Daily Republican., 1883-02-09

/
las wbera an .t,,day;, nf Jal,, NO. md
that defendant in Indebted instead :
lis indebted the court held IL defectiy,
land a. no affidavit and discbarved a,
fendaDt on common hail because n
perjury could be assigned upon Il. IN
| 100; Reeks w. Groneman, cited 2 WI
900
In the Court of Common Pleas in En-
gland supplementary affidayits were al
lowed, but "only allowed where tn
original affidavit is in itself good one
such ~ perjury can be assigned upon.
(Ib ll5j. This is sufficient TO rhov
the degree OF certainty required in affi
dayits OF cause Of actioD-which. in Of
fects, the relators affidayits are--an(
will make plain the remark of Justic,
Butler before quoted.
Suppose the knowledge OF the afliant,
not to be loose, as well az their affida
Wits, where was the difficulty in namipf
the illegal voters? How can we imag
inc, in fact, knowledge of Illegal votes
and not at the same time knowledge ol
the names of those who cast them w,
cannot; for the name of eycry voter Is
announced audibly when he hands in
his ballot.
There was no difficulty, therefore. in
giving the names of non. resident voters
In this case Neither could there have
been any in the case of the alleged forg.
ed tax receipts upon which any one
voted; for no valid rcceipts could be
made by any person other than the col
lector, and It was his duty 10 be present
at the place Of voting tn receive taxes,
from the opening TO the closing of the
polls, and he must be taken to have been
there, no proof or suggestion having
been offered that he was not.
Again, it appears by the affidavit OF
Thomas Toy that he was present at the
place Of voting in North Christiana dis
trict from the opening to the closing of
the polls. Now why did not he, or some
other person of his side, for instance the
judge Of the election of his politics.
make objection to taking the votes OF
the 80 non residents who used fraudu-
lent tax receipts? tisnot alleged in
his affidavit that he or any one else op-
posed their voting and (what il .ip
nificanD it il not stated that no one
knew of the fact of illegality of those 30
votes until it was too late to object. He
would, most probably, have said 50, If
such hal been the fact. No objection
was made, we may be sure, or proof
would have been offered of the fact
We have case then of an applica-
ion 10 make absolute a rule for a writ
If quo warranto against a Sheriff in !
,ffice, with all the legal muniments ofI
title and exercising it's duties. upon two
lffidavits alleging no material fact |
which can be embodied in the writ in
uch a traycrsabe shape AZ the rules of
require, and upon which the
.fiiant could be prosecuted for neriurv
f they sworc falsely. The certainty re-
,lireh in an indictment could moi be
deserved, EXCEPT by averrinp what i,
worn to AZ a negative fact. which aver.
lent would omen an inuuiry into Nh.
agality of every vote cast at the North
polls for James Martin
With no power TO make any man t.lI
ow he voted. Such u requirement
;ould be wholly impracticable in il,
xccution.
Upon the ground therefore of the in.
Efficiency OF tn. affidayits. not regard.
~ the uncertainty of knowledge about
ne illegality sworn to, | think hi, rul,
nould be discharged.
The opinion of Judge Houston. which )
as delivered Immediately after The 5
hief Justice closed, is an exceedingly ,
.npthy document from which rho ri. {
wing extracts are made: ,
The ancient writ of ana waronto for d,
hich all information in the nature Of
writ seems 10 have become nj an.arlv n
.riod the general substitute was n f
ph prcrorati We process in tb, nature |
a writ of right for the king in the e
,untry from which we derive il
rainst one who had usurned ar claim, A
any office. franchise or iibcrtv If the il
own. 10 inuuire bv what authority he v
Ipported his claim 10 II in ordsr IN s.
.terruine the right, And as surh "A
ices. franchises or liberties in th,ir s.
irin pertain as high nrrror,tivr d
rhts to the king rxclusiv,Iv and c
mid only b. obtuined and held iv gift h
grant from him any ,n,in ,bH no., II
ssiou of sucb an nft;ra nr fr,u,Li.o =;
AZ commanded by the writ ,o show nv
hat authority he held or ,xerris.L il, |,
AZ of course brought into direct con, t;
ct with the king himself h.fnro III. Il
Ihunal that was to trv II ,a cI,i,,;n, a
hiyh ur,ropativ. rirht nrrt,ininu - d
q SOVEREIGN alone and which cnrId II
lv rest in a subject hv ,ctu,l vr,nt,n
m ar b;s ancestor. q,
A al JnuI;,,.; , q;