The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-05-22
IN FAVOR OF Mr.. LLOYD
The Juogment Of the Lower Court
Ovorruled on the Ground That
Fraud WAS Practiced at
Precinct -.



shrievalU case OF Silver Bow county. ID
is vo>nninous document, consisting Of
AZ paGeo Of type written matter. The
opinid II written by Chief Justice Bhke,
his tw nsociates concurring. The judg-
ment - lower court, seating Mr.. Sui
livan, y 0evcrsed, and the Office given TO
Mr.. II !. the republican appellant, on
the gr{ "a that the returns from the tun-
mel pr( 1nct were fraudulent. The bulk
OF theJ saton, including all It's important
featurtA = given below, the parts of a
purely SGgmai o. technical character he
ing cou1Dased and SUNNI irixed, as indi-
Gated:
This ~ electlon contest between Lloyd, the
| apI'ellAA and sullivan, the respondent who
county silver Bow, at the siecion held IN IN lsss. $50
The 50 1reies the nomination of Lloyd by
republs{ ed sullivan BY the democratic con.
straci - vsss CT x The election. according %
TO the Sc -. wnaeh Ess male October u, 1859,
Of elect 20 Suiifvsn. me statute which gov.
ing in thu procecdinE provides as follows:
Here Follows the statute which governs
| the proce<lure and trial of the issues in
volved In q contest OF county officers,
which was observed in Judge McHatton's
court. and with which the readers of the
STANDARD are familiar. Then follows
the Judgment OF the lower court entered
February "a, 1890 and the findings Of
fact. The next eight or ten pages Of the
decision Is devoted to answering the con-
tention of the respondent that the motion
for new trial does not lie and that this
court has no jurisdiction of the appeal.
The court holds otherwise and cites
many eases from which infcrences are
drawn in support of it's position. This
part OF the decision is of technical ma
ture and of more interest TO lawyers than
TO the general public. Having disposed
| OF this question, the court resumes:
II now becomes necessary to refer la some Of
| the findings Of the facts by the court below
which are properly before us for review.
.. The returns Of the election at precinct "a
were delivered 10 the clerk of the board of
| county commissioners by the said W. A. Penny
cook, one of the Judges. In person, some time he
! her, 1889. The said returns contained the
proper tally sheets aud extensions. the names Of
the candidates voted for, the number of votes
received by each, written In full length. In words
duly certified BY the Judges and clerks who
held shS said election q said precinct.
true and genuine handwriting of the Judges aud
clerks ~ election at said precinct. and from AN
Inspection of said returns, the number of Votes
east aud for whom east can be easily asccr-
tainrd
:. The said returns ,from said precinct "a
show upon their face. and the court finds the
facts to bc. that i7i votes were pnll, thcreat AT
said election, and that the respondent, Eup,ne
| ID. sullivan, received al said precinct IG5 votes.
al, amI ,b hnr n, g"n,,s, ,a, John " oyd, ,oles AZ
| 10y the returns thereof, respondent received AT
said election 3,S5 votes, and the contestant 3,gD
votes ~ that counting the votes east al prrrin,t
-, together with the votes east at all the other
precincts of s,i county for the office ~ sheriff,
the contestant, Lloyd, received 3,to votes, and
the respondent 3Ils votes, majority of ~ votes
for said office In favor of said sullivan, and the
court ~ finds the fact Ia be-.
u. The polls were closed at q o'clock as AN,
nounce,l, and thereafter, during the evening AMI
night OF said day. the Judges proceeded Ia can
,ass and count and make out the returns of the
~ THAT A. NJ. Sind.rson and Thomas
o'keefe, who were sworn as clerks ~ election al
said precinct ~, performed none ~ the clerical
work therrat. btit all the clerical work ps'r.
formed by the Judges and principally by Penny
rook."
i6 I'm the whole e, i,lence. the court finds that
, the said election held ut precinct - IN said
county On the ist day of October, isSg. was fairly
and honestly conducted! that M fraud WAS cui
nitted or attempted ai said precinct 10y the rler.
occllrrrd thrr.ai were without fraudulent intent
aud resulted IN injury To- M one, and did not
effect the result ~ the fairness NJ the rl,ttun
That all voters registered for said precinct win,
applied to vote were permitted to vote: that no
intimidation or undue influence was exercised or
attempted upon the voters by any one; that the
! said Judges AMI clerks, nor either of them, ~,
not mark any ballui after It's delivery by th,
,oieIs t9 ,n, lndEe "i election; nnr were said bal
manner, except by the official stamp placed
thercon before they were delivered To- the voters
and that the said returns from the said precinct
- express and show the true aud correct rcsiil
) of said election held ther,at.
r IL il apparent from the findings of the fact
, thai IN, ele'tion ~ the appellant or r,spOnd"D
, Ia the office In controversy depends upon III
,ote 81 the pr,rin,t numbered thirty four ~ TN
: county of silver iiow. The court below decides
I: that the returns, which had been rejc,t,dby tn
] hoar,l of canyassers We're valid and .Nhibits'
the true count of the hallois which had herI
81 the j,uiicial coniIhi. We are surprised tha
the counsel for the respondent maintains tina
'the question nf fraud IN th. conduct of tn
rl'stion ai precinct -, which was thrust int
= this ease by contestant against the objection 0
|, respondent, j. AN iinInaterial matter af,l canno
= l,e considered as an element In Us drterinn'
]. ton" This was the main ISSUE nj the trial upol
A which testimony WAS offered by both parties
!, and the objections Of ia. respondent upon sim
liar grounds were OVcrrllrd. rnd the court futnl
distntly thereon and rendcre, Judgment Ne
\ conngly. The record shows that sullivan ha
4 commenced action against Lloyd, and that, upo
y a question raised by counsel. the court said I'll
u these two cas- y there j. only one point Ia derid,
= and that i, who is entitled Ia this ofi,'es
srm. 10 m. that i Is unnecessary tq Try bo,h 2
l. terlnlne the rights Of these parties on th" rV
denr tina, may b; presented In thess two 'ase' s
$ sr%is s% ''s All the ''s ISSUES ba%esn ,sa llas l
parties, aud the issue of that VIII II,
: trrnine the whole matter. The statement of roi
!. lest says that the county clerk, .disrrgar,
y ing his plan duty, issued "A certificate of elr'
d ton Ia the said office Ia the said sullivan. Tina
4 the said clerk. Ia support of his said legs
action as hrrcuhrtpp set Oui, claims tu haN
- knowledge of the return of large number I,
y votes for the said sullivan as returned from pr,
" cind -, said county and which said return
\ were nut included Ia the said abstract ~ vote
(. and which said votes, II they had been Z,
= turned, would In fact give 10 the said Sullha
=, the highest number Of votes for the said ottic
:. That Ia fact and IN law, there were M legal n
" turns presented to said clnSass"rs from the sii
T. precinct 81. That there We're M legal return
IL rs by law In such provided ever Or at all n
= reiyrd 10y said cansasS,'rs,
a The answer denies all these allegations. I'll
transcript shows that the appellant al all tint
assilled the returns Of this precinct, and u
cnu,tFt OF the officers thereof, aud pointed ~
4 specifically his objections. The respondent III
A. mi hle "a demurrer Ia the statement of contes
ct move To make any part thereof sIS'ciiic al
III certain. or by any pleading attack the same.