The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-12-21
LINC0LN'S ELECTION
Supreme Court Decision Brings
Back Tissue Ballot Days.
THAT FITZSlMM0NS COUNCIL.
The Court Decides That IL was Not DE
Facto Council-Town solicitor James
r. Murphy's Claim for 5000 for Revis-
ing Town Ordinances Dismissed.

The memorable period in the history Of
the local government OF the Town of Lin
coin in the months of June and July.
1891, when the Republicans took posses
sion of the Town House by storm in lieu
OF decision Of the supreme court de-
claring the election of the Democratic
Town Council void by reason of number
OF tissue ballots found in the ballot box,
is brought to mind by rescrIpt and an
opinion by Judge Stiness handed down
by the Supreme Court this morning, i'm
the case brought by James +. Murphy
against Charles Z. Moies, town treasurer
of Lincoln. The plaintiff was then town
solicitor of Lincoln and was employed to
revise the town ordinances of That town,
for which work he presented his bill Of
5000 TO the Democratic town council
which the court declared illegally elected.
The court In its opinion says that the
question in the case is, whether the
plaintiffs claim was presented TO the
Town Counhil pursuant TO the require
ment OF the public statutes.
The claim was presented on the 18th of
June, 1891, to n body elected on the lst of
that month, and declared elected by the
foregoing Iowa Council on June 3. The
new council organized with the election
of Frank +. Fitzsimmons as president.
Among the ballots cast at the election
at which the council were elected a bun
die OF tissue ballots was found, and their
count was protested at botn the modera-
tors count aud the count by the town
| council. Upon the advice of the plain
| tiff, however who was then town solicit
tor. the ballots were counted and
the new council declared elected, June
4 quo warranto: proceedings ere imme-
! dialely instituted, upon which Judg
nf rendered against the
FItzsimmons council July 3, 1891, on the
ground that that body was not legally
elected, and on that day the legally
elected members qualified. 1t il now
claimed tnat the Fitzsimmons council
was de facto council, and that the pre-
sentation of the claim to them by the
plaintiff was compliance with the
statute.
In case like this it is. Of course, nee
essnry for the plaintiff TO show that the
| claim was presented To council dc jurc
| or dc fdctO. Under the statutes, town
officers hold their Offices until their sue
| cessors are lawfully elected and qualified
| to act. The Old town council in this case
was the dc jtre council. The court
| is not prepared to sly that be-
cause the old council had abdicated
| 10 was not In possession OF Office.
| because 10 might have been ignorant of
| the law in this respect, aud have given up
| the Office because it believed it could not
| do otherwise, aud then afterwards have
| denied the right of the new council to act
The plaintiff is not entitled to rely on
the action of the FitZsimmons council as
| "A de facto body, as the legality OF the
election of that body was challenged be-
fore the presentation OF the plain S
| claim.
The court is of the opinion that the
| plaintiffs claim was not presented TO the
| town council of the Town or Lincolu as
quired by law, because the body To
which it was presented was neither a
council de fac or de jure. Judgment
| for the defendant for cosls.