Morning journal and courier., 1892-06-10
THE QUO wARRANTO CASE.

The Alleged Marked Ballots Micro- |
 scopically The Argu-
 ments in the Case Finished-A Find.
 ing of Facts to be Made Probably
 Within Week.
 The Phelan-Wa quo warranto suit came to an end in the superior court yes terday, at least, SO far as the lawyers are concerned, heterogeneous being concluded and finding of the facts asked for. Judge Hall will probably render his finding with in week, after which the case will rest quietly until September, when it comes up before the supreme court.
 Before the arguments were made yester- day some evidence, which it was impossi- ble to get earlier, was introduced.
 Thomas Costigan, democratic counter from the town of Sharon, testified that he saw four peculiarly folded ballots, which resembled the letter GA"
 Michael Costigan, counter from the same place, said that he counted nineteen of these "marked" ballots.
 John J. Ryan said that as counter he protested against counting these ballots on the ground that they were marked for the purpose of identifying the voter, but that they were counted. Ryan testified also that he had heard that money was being offered to men to vote these folded tickets Charles 0. Gordon of the same place testified that he had been offered one of these folded ballots to vote.
 The admission of this evidence was op- posed by Attorney Cole and Judge Hall ruled it out.
 The attorneys for the respondent then introduced evidence strengthening his side ! of the case.
 Dr. R. J. Wolfe of Hartford testified that he had had about twenty years' ex- perience az mioroscopist and that he
 had examined certain ballots cast in the | city of Meriden and which bore mark
 between the letters "v" and 'e" in the
 word governor"
 MT. Case said that he took the Meriden
 ballots and then had the witness examine ! them under = -emicrescope. He said that
 these ballots bore identically the same
 mark as the 126 contested ballots cast in
 Bridgeport. Dr. Wolfe testified that he
 found the mark referred to upon the bal
 lots and that under 35-diameter glass he
 discovered that the mark was made by
 printers ink and that it very closely re.
 sembled the ink in the letters them
 selves. He produced also two photo graphs of the ballots taken under {
 strong pressure, which brought out tho
 specks. Upon the photographs the two
 specks exactly correspond and that i,
 would have been impossible to have made
 the marks artifcislly. He then went o1
 to say that the marks were never made by
 lead pencil or stylographic pen. He saii
 that the ink would have sunk through ont
 the fbxe of the paper which is made of or
 dinary wood pulp. He stated further tha
 the mark had been made with printers
 ink and that it would have been utterl,
 impossible to make the marks by hand
 and that there was not shadow of doub
 but that they were made by flaw in thu
 type.
 He was then given two of the Bridge
 port ballots to examine under a powerful
 microscope. He at once announced tha
 the mark was exactly the same as those ol
 the Meriden ballots. Judge Hall and tn lawyers on both sides examined the ballot
 in the same way, and all seemed to agre
 that the mark was caused in exactly tn
 same way.
 The witness also said that the mar might have easily been erased by piec of rubber, as it was not impressed into tn
 paper, as the letters were, but that it ha lightly hit the paper and left mark l Counsel for MT. Phelan took no time i cross examining this witness, seeming t be convinced as to what caused the mark. Then followed the arguments, ex-Jude ! Stoddard opening for the relator. Tn ; main point of his argument was that tn ! 126 Bridgeport ballots had been marke
 for the purpose of identifying the voter Ex-Judge Harrison submitted the tabu had g majority of 547. He claimed tht the moderator of the town of Preston ha made 8 clerical error of twenty vote'
 which would make Phelan's majority 56'
 His second claim was that twenty-thre , Norwich ballots which were wrongful ., counted for MT. Phelan and one Oxfor ', ballot should be deducted from the II ,, lator's majority.
 He then made the statement that if ever
 rejected ballot which the respondent ha . l claimed should have been counted, incluc ing the 126 Bridgeport ballots, they woul reduce MT. Phelan's majority only 239 an that he would have a clean majority (
 30S. He then went on to the counted ba : lots, which the respondent claims shoul have been rejected. He said there wei ,442 of these. He next took up the clail , l of the relator in regard to blank prohib | tion ballots and industrial reform ballot i. l He claimed that there were about 1 SC of these which should have been rejected . but which were counted.
 Attorney Case opened the arguments fc z the respondent and was followed by Alto ney Cole. During the course of MT. Case . | argument he said that the time for tryin 7 the case upon appearances was passed, an .. the time for trying it on facts had arrived He said the democrats had not establishe ! what the whole number of votes cast wa . and that he did not think that the ev 2 dence of the counter amounted to much : l as they were obliged to refer to the coun |, CTS certificates to refresh their memor, He said the tabulated report showed 19 more votes than were actually cast in tt state. He did not see how the democrat :, could account for this discrepancy.