Weekly Phoenix herald. [volume] (Phoenix, Maricopa County, Ariz. Territory [Ariz.]) 1882-1896, 1883-01-26

| ever, lt MAS CO. - ana IN que time
| Kirkland gave notice of contest. His
complaint alleged mal-conduct and
the casting of ILLEGAL votes in several
of the voting precincts. As was re-
quirad by law he furnished the de-
PENDANT, Mr.. Osborn, three days be-
fore the day set for trial, viz: the
10Th day of January, with the total
number of the illegal votes alleged
to have been cast for the said de-
fendant, and the names of the per-
sons so voting.
The case came to trial in due time
and form, terminating as was indi-
Gated IN the findings OF Judge Pin
| ney, heretofore mentioned as having
been published ia your paper. The
fifth article of the findings of the
Court reads as follows:
"Tkat among the votes cast for
said Neri Osborn and estimated and
counted by said Board of Supervis-
ors as having been received by said
| Ncri Osborn we're eleven votes pur-
| porting to have been cast in favor of
| said Neri Osborn at II certain election
precinct in said county known as
Aqua Caliente precinct, and the
| Court finds that four of the said votes
were not cast lie rally, as having been
cast before there was any Board of
Election legally entitled to receive
the same"
How in the name of common sense
the Court found .four-simply four
| illegal votes cast at Aqua C..liente,
is matter that must ever remain u
| mystery in view of the facts and
must have been matter of as much
surprise to counsel for defendant as
it was to those for the contestant.
| The facts as demonstrated on trial
are simply these: Harry Neahr. who
was clearly proven never to have
been appointed Judge of election,
| opened the polls at about six O'Clock
in the morning, and to make things
lively proceeded to vote himself and
| also to vote for four others. Whether
the other persons whose votes he
placed in the ballot-box were present
at all is q matter that seems to be
| enshrouded in considerable doubt,
but as it cuts no figure here it is use
less TO discuss it. The evidence re-
| gartiing these five votes cast early in
the morning was furnished by Neahr
himself on the stand, corroborated by
| p. 81. Coyls, and also by the witness
Cameron, who was the only legally
constituted officer of election at the
| Aqua Caliente polls on the day of
election. Neahr's vote was no more
legal than the others, for, Ike the
other four, to use his Honor's own
| words, it was " cast before there was
any Board of Election legally en-
| titled to receive the same' Neahr's
ballot amounted to no more than
would that of any other qualified
elector of this city, who might have
arose on election day, placed his hat
on a table and deposited his vote
therein; yet the Court held that it
was legal. for the said "Mr. Neahr
| was there and could have voted again
if his illegally cast ballot had been
thrown out" as was clearly the duty
| of the Election Board. But 1t was
! proven that there WAS 70 Board of
Election legally entitled to receive
votes" at Aqua Caliente on election
day. Hart Neahr was never ap-
pointed Judge of election. 1t was
his brother who was so constituted
G. w. Cameron wes duly appointed
Inspector. He and Harry Neahr
proceeded to appoint one Hari, a
resident of Tucson or Tombstone, or
the Lord knows where, as the second
Judge. Here was a Board of Elcc-
ton constituted with but one man
who was properly qualified to act.
The law distinctly provides that the
electors OF a precinct, together as
sembled, may select Board of Elec.
ton, in the failure of the Board of
Supervisors to appoint or the failure
| of the persons SO appointed to act,
but one man cannot perform that duty.
And yet, says the Court, Mr.. Neahr
was dc fdcto Judge We ask to be
delivered from all such de fdcte Off
Gals. The truth is, if the Courts
decision that the four votes cast in
the morning were not legal because
of "having been cast before there
was any Board of Election legally
entitled to receive the same" is
sound, then it follows that there were
no legal votes at Agna Caliente, and
the entire eleven votes should have
been thrown out.
Now, as regards Tempe Precinct.
Where the Judge holds three votes,
to-wit: Manuel Gonzales, Nabor
Gonzales, and John e. Larsen, cast
Tor hlrkland, were illegal, Tor the
reason that their names did not ap-
pear on the Great Register. When
these witnesses were called for the
defendant, the opposing counsel OBJ
jected on the ground that three days
notice had not been given them
This question was argued, and
Smith, of counsel for Kirkland, read
the decision of Judge Sanderson,
Judge of the Supreme Court of CAL
ifornia, on the same point raised in
that state where the law is word for
word with ours. This decision can
be found in Thirtie.h California R.,
pages 1874 to 401, in the case of Nor
wood VS.. Kenield. 1t was an cleo
ton contest, wherein the contestant