Beverly banner. [volume] (Beverly, N.J.) 1877-1964, 1885-09-26
THE OMITTED EVIDENCE IN THE
WATER QUESTION. AND WHO
Is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
EAII LIRE OLE IITSTIGE

FAILURE OF JUSTICE.
1t has been alleged BY member Of
Council, who is opposed TO the con-
struction Of water works, that.it could
not be proven when Mr. Flanders
examined the witnesses for the city in
its proceedings to set aside the writ of
certiorari that the notices of the election
to be held Sept. 8, 1883, were posted at
least six days in at least twenty public
places in the City of Beverly before
the election, and therefore MIR. Elan
ders did not ask the witnesses Joseph
III. Britton and VIM. Vankirk the
questions necessary to prove those facts.
MIR. Bennett, the President of Common
Council, knew Of his own knowledge
that those notices had been put up at
least two weeks before the election and
having that knowledge requested Mr..
Flanders to ask Joseph H. Britton and
VIM. Vankirk when under examina-
ton. the following questions, when did
you put up those notices, and at what
places did you put them up, and were
they all put up at public places, and
Mr.. Flanders silently refused to ask
either Of those witnesses those questions
necessary to prove those facts. The
subjoined statements Of those witnesses
coupled with the statement of l.. W..
Perkins, clearly shows (Which the Court
said in its opinion refusing to set aside
the writ was not clearly shown to have
been done strictly according to the
Statute of 1876 that there would not
have been any failure to show clearly
that the notices were posted strictly
according to the Statute, if Mr.. Elan
ders had asked those questions, which
he refused to do, even after being re-
quested to do so by Mr.. Bennett, and
the writ, as we understand the opinion
of the court, would have been set aside.
Why did Mr.. Flanders refuse to ask
those questions ? He recognized by his
other questions to the witnesses the i'm
portance and necessity Of proving the
compliance by the city with every re-
quirement of the act Of 1876, before the
city could avail itself of its provisions
This Judge Parker said in his opinion
i'll setting aside the election Of the City
of Gloucester was absolutely necessary
1t required but very ordinary acumen
in a lawyer to see the necessity Of such
evidence to prove one of the most vital
parts of the city's case. If he refused
because he was of the opinion it was
not material, his understanding judged
by the opinion of Judges Parker and
Scudder) was clearly too incompetent
to be the attorney Of the city in that
case.
Mr.. Flanders said, after the decision
of Judge Scudder, that he understood
it could not be proven that the notices
were posted as required by the Statute
and therefore he did not ask those
questions. If he believed that that
fact could not be proven, why incur
the cost of taking testimony and the
great expense of attempting to sci
aside the writ, because, if that fact
could not be proven, how could he
expect to succeed with the opinion d
Judge Parker against him. To avoid
the charge Of incompetency, by the
allegation Of his belief or understand
ing that it could net be proven, and
under that belief or understanding
from the very inception of the case
attempted to prove every compliance
with every other requirement Of the
act, logically incurs or suggest the
charge Of character more grave thar
that of mental deficiency. Mental in
trinity is only misfortune, while the
other would be fault of the highest
gravity. He did not ask Mr.. Brittor
or Vankirk if they could prove that
vital fact, if he had, they would have
informed him that they would prove
that fact. Why did he not ask Mr.
Britton and Vankirk Echo answers
Why! 1t is to us an enigma. If he
had such belief or understanding, il
should have been overcome by the re
quest of the President of the Common
Council to put those questions, and il
their answers had been that they did
not know when those notices were
posted, he would have been held ire
sponsible for the effect of that answer.
STATEMENT OF WITNESSES.