Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-08-04
The Ballot Box Thieves and their
Abettors Again Knocked Out
---La8t Of the Galisteo
Election Cases.
Decided as Justice, Equity and De
cenoy Demand Wailing and
Crashing in the Bood-
lers Camp,
Lawful Orders OF the Courts Must BE
Obeyed d-The Mills of Justice
Grinding Exceedingly Fine.

In the supreme court this morning il
the matter of the territory ex rel. B NJ
Read We. j. II. Sloan, g. L. Wylys ano
Teodoro Martinez, comprising the former
board of commissioners of Santa Fe c0un
ty, an opinion was handed down affirm
ing District Judge Seeds decision in the
county election case involving the stolen
ballot box from Galisteo precinct, No. s
This case was argued on Friday last by
Solicitor General Bartlett and Mr.. John II
Knaebel for the territory and n B. Laugh.
lin and F. Downs for the old county board
The opinion is by Chief Justice OBrien
and is as follows:
On the petition of defendant in error,
the Judge of the district court of Santa Fe
county issued on the 18th day of Novem-
her, 1890, an alternative writ of manda-
mus, directed to the plaintiffs in error, as
| the canvassing board of said county, re-
quiring them among other things to count
and canvass an election certificate from
precinct No. 8, or to appear before the
court and produce such returns and all
papers in their custody purporting to be
sucn returns. 1t further recites that the
original returns, including the poll books,
ballot box and certificates from precinct
No. had been purloined or taken away
and were not before the board when in
session to canvass the returns from the
county. 1t then proceeds to direct the
board to canvass as a return from said
cin oI hut ha
and clerks of election at said precinct, in
compliance with the provisions OF section
1886, Compiled Laws of 1884.
Thereafter plaintiffs in error appeared
and filed an answer to the writ. The por-
tions thereof pertinent to the returns from
the precinct in question are briefly as
follows: That they did not know whether
an election had been held in said pre-.
cinct at the general election in November
or not that they had met at the county
seat as required by law, on November 10,
1890, to canvass all election returns
regularly before them; that they had
instructed their clerk to have such
returns for their official action at such |
time and place; that the latter had
reported to them that he had not in his
possession and was unable to find any
ballot box, poll books or returns from
precinct No. s. that no such returns from
the precinct from the election held on
November 4, 1890, had been made to
them or to their clerk; and they deny
that the same had been taken or pur-
loined from them while sitting as board
Of county canvassers. They then allege
that on the 18th day Of November, 1890,
the retator, Benjamin M. Read, filed
with their clerk a paper purporting to be
certificate of the result of the election
in precinct No. 8; that such certificate
was not, nor was it alleged to be, the
original certificate authorized by the
provisions of section 113l OF the Compiled
Laws, nor was it copy authenticated in
accordance with the requirements of
section 1896 of such laws that as the
same had not been received by or pre-
sented to them in the manner prescribed
by law, they treated it as nullity and de-
clined to canvass the same.