The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-12-26
is PAIRSON BEA7EN?!
The Recount Shows Con-
siderable Gains for
Nelson.
REVELATIONS OF THE BOXES.
Ex-Judge Garretson for Pairson
Says the Court Has No Jurls-
diction.
REVELATIONS OF THE BOXES.

The recount of the ballots in the con
test between William George Nelson and
William Pairson for the seat in the Board
of Freeholders, which the County Board
of Canyassers awarded to Pairson, was
concluded before Supreme Court Com
missioner John A. Nugent, at the City
Hall, on Tuesday
The boxes in the First and Second pre-
cincts only were re-opened. The official
returns showed that in the First precinct
Pairson received 230; Nelson, 20; and in
the Second Pairson received 262 and Nell
son 215 votes. The official returns from
all the precincts gave Pairson majority
of a.
The poll sheet when it was examined
showed that in the First precinct only
226 votes had been cast.
GAINS FOR NELSON.
The recount showed that in the First
precinct out of the first 226 votes counted,
which were all the law allowed
to be counted because the poll list shows
only that number OF votes to have been
cast, Pairson received 1S9, or 42 less than
returned by the Board, and Nelson re-
ceived 80, or 13 more than he was credited
with.
Besides the vote given to Pairson and
Nelson out of this 226 Donnelly received
2, Eagan 1 and blank 1.
The election board counted altogether
1858 votes and out of this gave Pairson 230
and left nineteen in the box.
OF the votes counted over the number
on the poll list PairsOn got all but one,
which was the 240th ballot and was for
Nelson.
of the nineteen loose ballots above all
counted, eleven were for Pairson and
eight for Nelson
THE LITTLE J0KERS.
The ballots used were not of the same
size, those cast for Pairson being larger
than Nelson's, but there were a lot of
''jokers," /" which were small and the same
size as Nelson's ballots.
Out of the 226 ballots which alone
should have been counted. So were these
jokers or little ballots and IS of the
number which should not have been
counted were the same.
The explanation given by the election
officers was that the box was out of order
and frequently would not work; and
this theory seems to be borne
out by the fact that some of
the ballots that are very plainly
milled and stamped are not punctured,
or stamped and not milled, or milled and
not stamped, and some are punctured
and not milled or stamped-especially
not stamped.
1t is supposed that these ballots were
deposited inside of the other ballots, and
hence would be punctured.
the needle going through
all the folds but the inside ballot could
not be stamped because its surface was
not exposed.
THEY SEEM MOST REGULAR.
peculiar thing about the iokers is
that quite number of these are the best
marked by the three marks of the bal
lot box.
This seems to do away with the sup
position that they were cast inside of
other ballots.
THE LOOSE BALLOTS.
OF the 19 loose ballots not counted, 9
were unmarked. Four of them were
for Pairson, and were for Nelson, three
of which were not punctured, and two
not milled or STAMPED.
This indicates that the ballots were not
fraudulent but that the box was at fanlt.
Pairson, as returned, was elected by "a
majority.
Counting the number of ballots on the
poll list of the First Precinct he got 1888
votes, but the returns gave him 230.
"We claim" said Counselor Noonan
who represented Nelson at the recount,
''tbat Parsons vote is thus reduced
forty-two votes, and by that alone he
would be defeated by eight ma
JOrluY, UuJ III bAS ShIl6 mum
Der, Nelsoni gains thirteen which
we claim elects him by twenty -one major
ity while in the Second Precinct he
gained four, making total majority of
twenty-five votes.
"The ballot box in the First precinct
registered 1873 votes" Mr.. Noonan went
on. 1.-THE names on the poll book are re-
uuired to be numbered from one upward.
1.-THE number opposite the last name
was 246, and to make this, numbers had
been skipped through the poll sheet so as
to allow twenty votes to be added"
DECISION MAY BE HELD.
When Commissioner Nugent makes his
report to Judge Nugent makes his report
to Judge Knapp the Court will prob
ably hold the disposition of the
case until the Supreme Court decides the
question of the Middlesex county clerk
ship contest, which has been
certified to that court by Justice
Scudder for an advisory opinion as to the
Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case
of this kind.
Two similar cases have been adjudicated
in the Circuit Court, one from Camden
and the other from this county.
Ex-Judge Garretson, who appeared for
Mr.. Nelson, has already raised this quess
ton of jurisdiction.
In the city charter case the Chief JUS
tice held that the Legislature cannot de-
clare in what manner the rightto an office
can be determined; that can be deter
mined only by a quo warranto; such a
writ is the prerogative of the Supreme
Court and cannot be given to the Circuit