The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1892-12-20


the 18th of last June to authorize the in
crease of the borough debt for the purpose.
! In the Court of Quarter Sessions of the
Peace Of Scbuylkill County, IS:
In the matter of the special election held
| June H. 1892, by the citizens of the Borough
| of Shenandoah, authorizing the Borough
Council to increase the debt OF said Borough.
! In re petition filed July II, 1892, by certain
citizens of said borough, purporting to said
! election.
And now, Dec. 10, 1892, the Chief Burgess
| and the Borough Council of said Borough of
Shenandoah came into court and respectfully
suggest to the court that there is no law and
no provision in any law that requires or au-
thorizes the court to pass upon the validity OF
said election, and that this court has no juris-
diction in the premises.
| That the laws allowing election contests re-
| fer conclusively to public officers, and the
only election of contests for contested elect.
ions known to the law, or authorized by law,
are such as concern the election of public Off
GERS, the legality of whose election may be in
quired to the manner directed by law; but no
law authorized an election of this character
to be inquired into or contested in this court.
II is not charged or pretended by the CON
| testants that this election was illegally held
or conducted, or that illegal votes were re-
ceived, or legal votes rejected by the election
officers, or that the election officers were
guilty of any error or misconduct whatever,
or that their return of said election was in
any respect untrue or incorrect, and there is
nothing in said petition contained that in any
wise impeaches the honesty and integrity of
said election, or the return thereof
| The said petition does not as required by
! law in contested election cases. show wherein
it is claim, d is undue or illegal.
The law regarding election contests requires
the officials to the petition to swear not only
that the election contested was undue or
illegal but also that the return thereof is
not correct"
The affidavit in the present case is 'that
the return thereof being iHegai is incorrect"
1t is not shown no = the return is illegal, and
this assertion being vague and inferential, is
not in compliaa ace with the law, and the
affidavit itself fatally defective in this re.
spect.
Charles W. Dengler being contestant in
this cause and party in interest in these
proceedings was not qualif to administer
the oath to his fellow contestants, and the So
called affidavit attested by said petitioners
does not sustain these proceedings.
The affidavit is further falsely defective
because the officers are not named in the
body of it, as required by law. No one is
named in the body Of the affidavit and the
appearance of certain names at the end of
the paper does not per Sc prove or show that
the signers were sworn.
The so-called petition of contest filed in
this matter is in substance and 10 all intents
and purposes bill in equity; and the Court
of Quarter Sessions has no jurisdiction in the
premises, and has no authority to administer
any of the relief prayed for therein.
J. II. PoMERoY,
A, w. SCHALCR
Solicitors for the Borough Council sc.