The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1890-11-23

there is no proof Of fraud
being prnctleed and nothing more than
lnfernces drawn from the frauds shown
IN those precincts where direct evidence
has been offered. The total number OF
votes cast ID the county for Direetof-at-
Large OF the board Of Chosen Free
holders was Al IT'S. OF these The fncun-
bent August NJ. Bruggemann received
y, ~ votes. the contestant, James Roche,
1Ss if2. and nIhers 2l2 votes. by which it
appears that the incumbent had a piur-
atty over the contestant OF 1913 votes
upon which he was declared duly elected.
The proofs that have been offered show
satisfactorily Tor the purposes Of this
application that Of these ballots cast for.
the incumbent 1.T24 were fraudulent and
should have been deducted from his nss-
iprity. leaving it 2, sos. If these facts Be
all that cen be shown they do not estab-
llsn the right Of the relater to Gust the
1ncumb bent frons his Office. To effect his
removal It must appear thar the fraud
perpetfated WIS sufficient to change the
result OF the election This is according
to he terms used in our General Election
law, providing for summary IN
festigagion. and must necessarily
be 50 to make the writ effeetual IL it.
should be issued It is not demanded
that full proof should be made in the
first Instance. that tie incumbent has
intruded upon an office TO which be Eas
not been legally elected. but the contest
ant Is required 10 maze by his afiidayiss
upou this rale 4 prInza facia case for the
use OF the writ, which snail cast upon The
incumbsHt the labor aud expense Of
showing that he is entitled to the Office
which he holds. The degree Of proof re-
Quired for the allowance Of snch d writ IS
Well defined in the case of Queen Y.
Cousins, Il H. 2 b, BIG, where the
Court says ~ The rule always acted
upon is. that II the right person has been
elected, or 1t is not shown that anybody
else has been kept ont, Dor the result Of
the election III any way affected. the
Court will not allow the writ to issue. Z
After citing numerous authorities on
the subject, the writer goes on to state -
II would be very grieyous, said Lord
Mansfield, in Rex. Y. Wardr0per, Burr.
1864, II the Information should 20 Of
course, and e would bs breach OF trust
in the Court 80 grant it as OF course.
However. therefore, the court may dis
approve the fraudulent practices shewn
IN the election IN this county. brought in
question In this controversy and desire to
afford the fullest opportunity OF Inquiry
to discover the fraud in this proceeding
70 determine the right of Office where the
contestant has had fun opportunity 10
take All the a1ildaFits that be up3a this
application and has tailed 20 show even
presuniPriyelE that sufficient Illegal votes
were recsived 10 defeat the incumbent
add elect the relstor TO Office, it can not
be said that he has made sufficiently
prima facie case
The facts reiate 70 the one subject of
fraudulent voting and are clearly ascer-
tainabie. If no more be shown We must
conclude that nothing more remains. It
Is not reasonable inference, II we were
allowed to presume fraud. that because
there were frauds in twenty five precincts
Of the county there were in others sufn-
Gent 20 change the result
The proofs should 60 further and make
II appear that The fraudulent voiag WIS
so general throughout the county as to
make II at least probable that the result
was lot truly stated in the returns OF the
Board Of Canyassers.
The rule to cause should be discharged.