, 1891-06-03
THE COUNCIL CONTEST.
First Ward Case Up in the District
Court Yesterday.
Various Points That We're Brought
Out in the Proceedings.
The Case Was Taken Under Advise
ment by Judge Scott.

The demurrer filed by the defendant in
the election contest Of john c.. Baird
against Urish L. Ross. came on for argu-
ment yesterday in the district court. W.
K. Stoll was the attorney for Ross, while
Mr.. Baird himself, together with Judge
Lacey. watched the points for the plaintiff.
This contest was instituted at the last
term of court, Mr.. Baird claims,
among other things. thas in the first pre-
cinct OF the first ward. the judges and
clerks of election failed to count
for him seven votes cast By qualified cleo
tors, and that in the second precinct of
the same ward ten votes cast for him we're
w~rongfully rejected by the officers As
Ross had a majority OF but three votes,
these seventeen votes, if counted for
Baird, would give him a clear maiority.
Counsel for the defendant contended
that the demurrer should be sustained for
a number of reasons. The petition filed
by the plaintiff was defective because it
failed to state that Mr.. Baird was a quail,
fed elector of the state of Wyoming. The
allegation in question was that He was
a citlzel OF the United States, and a citl-
zen and qualified elector in the city Of
Cheyenne. county OF Laramie, state OF
Wyoming. II was argued that for all
shown BY this statement, Mr.. Baird may
have been a citizen Of the state of New
jersey ut the time of the election.
The next point relied on as a reason
why the petition was defective was that
there vas no allegation in it that, prior to
the holding OF the election, the registry
agents met at the proper times and places,
for the purpose of registering the voter:
OF the city. The petition stated a mum.
Der Of preliminary steps which had beer
taken prior to the holding OF the election
but made no mention whatever of any
registration having been had. Counse.
for Mr.. Ross cOntended that the petition
should show this. as it was necessary Il
show hat the election held last January
was a legal election in all respects.
The third ground set out was that the
petition contained no allegation whatever
as to the particular ward in which Mr.
Baird resided at the time of the election
To be eligible to the office in question HI
must have resided in the First ward q
certain number of days prior to the hold.
ing of the election. 1t was maintained
that the Dleadings should show that he
was eligible to the office and that as there
was no statement of any residence in the
FIRST ward, the petition was defective.
The next point raised was the one prin.
cipally relied on by Mr.. Stoll. He claimed
IS a matter OF law that the frauds per
petrated, or the mistakes made by the
election officers in counting the votes
should be specifically set out. and that the
presumption tina. these officers did their
duty could not be overcome by a mere
statement that there was error made. He
argued that the facts constituting the
mistake or the fraud should be ayeIred in
the petition. and that the statement that
there was error was too general IN matters
of this kind.
Judge Lacey replied tor the plaintiff.
and the court took the matter under sd-
visement.