The record-union., 1892-06-22
TRUSTEE GREEN'S ELECTION.
Stinson's Contest and Charges of Bri-
berry are on Hearing.
Day Consumed in Disposing of Tech
notwithstanding Van Fleet
Retires From the Case.

NSOAt SSoLOtudJ.
Sunson, according to his complaint,
was promised position by Green, pro-
VIded he would exert himself at the polls
70 secure Green's election, and was also
gwen money by Green to influence voters.
After Green's election, it appears, Stin-
son did not get the expected appoint
ilent, and as means of getting even he
Drought suit to GUST the new Trustee.
sTINsoN's CHARGES.
Stinson charges Trustee Green with
having resorted to bribery and other COR
rupt methods to secure his election, and
in his complaint goes into details. One
OF the most serious charges that he makes
is that Green entered into written agree
ment with II. T. Dillman and Robert
Barnett. as President and Secretary, re-
spectively, of the Sacramento Liquor
dealers Protective Association, wherein
Green promised, if elected, he would not
vote TO increase liquor licenses, but that,
on the contrary, he would, if the vote of
another Trustee could be procured, and
AT any time within the three years of his
term, vote for a decrease in the price of
licenses. The understanding was, says
Stlnson, that Green should in return for
this promise get the votes Ofthe members
OF the association in a body.
1t is also alleged that Green on the day
OF election and prior thereto gave to con-
teStant, Stinson. the sum of $40 for the
purpose and with the understanding and
agreement that the said StinSon would
procure the attendance OF voters at the
polls for the purpose of having said
voters cast their votes for L. III. Green,
and with the understanding and agree
ment that StinSOn would cast his vote for
Green and would do all in his power to
promote the election of said Green.
1t is also alleged that Green, prior to
the election, and with the intent to pro-
cure his election, offered and agreed to
appoint the contestant, Ira w. Stinson, to
the office of Gardener at the City Plaza,
which promise was made as an induce
ment and consideration to said Stinson to
vote for and procure and aid in procuring
the election of said Green TO the Office OF
Second Trustee.
ALLEGED USE OF MONEY.
Stinson declares that on March Sth, and
prior thereto, Green agreed and engaged
TO furnish to John Scroggs, Fred Rohrer,
Joseph Bailey and William Lamphrey
various sums of money, the various
amounts of which are to contestant uu-
known, which money was to be paid for
the purpose and with the intent that they
should promote the election OF said
Green, and that each of them should pro-
cure the attendance of voters at the polls
at the election for the purpose of voting
for Green.
1t is also alleged that the said e. H.
Green did on the Sth day of March, and
prior thereto, offer and agree to appoint
Samuel Gottleib as officer of the chain
gang for the city, which offer was also as
an lnducement and consideration to have
Gottleib vote for and aid in procuring the
election of Green.
1t is further charged that Green, in his
effort for election, and with that end in
view, promised to appoint John Mullins
as Gardener at the City Plaza.
THE DEFENsE'S OBJECTIONS.
The case did not get to trial proper yes
terday, the day being taken up in the
disposal of technicalities raised by Grove
l.. Johnson, attorney for Green.
Attorney johnson first called attention
10 his demurrer to the complaint. In this
demurrer, the defense objected to all of
the allegations set forth on the ground
that they were insufficient to constitute
cause of action. Mr.. Johnson argued the
matter at length.
Charles L. Jones, who, with Matt +.
johnson represents Stinson, argued that
the complaint properly followed the
statutes and that the allegations were
sufficient.
After the objections had been discussed
for couple of hours, they were sub
united to the court. Judge Van Fleet
overruled the demurrer, on the agree
ment of Attorney Jones to withdraw one
of the allegations which was deemed too
vague.
Attorney johnson then wanted to file
an amended demurrer, but the court
would not permit it. Mr.. Johnson took
formal exception to this ruling.
JUDGE PREwETT SUBSTITUTED,
The contest was ordered proceeded
with. Judge Van Fleet announced first.
however, that he did not desire to hear
the case, and had arranged with judge
Prewett of Placer County to preside in
his place. He explained that before he
had had known that there was to be any
litigation over the case he had discussed
the rumors that were afioat about Trus-
tee Green's election, and therefore con-
sidered 1t would improper for him to try
the case.
Attorneys Johnson and Jones declared
that they were both satisfied to have
Judge Van Fleet hear the case They
had sufficient confidence in his fairness.
Il appreciate that, gentlemen" said
Judge Van Fleet. 81 do not doubt nv
ability to try the case fairly, but it is a
matter of principle with me. Mr. Sheriff.
call Judge Prewett."
Judge Prewett came in and Judge Van
Fleet vacated the bench.
But Mr.. johnson was not ready to pro-
ceed with the testimony yet. He asked
Judge Prewett for permission to file an
amended demurrer, but, like Judge Van
Fleet, the Placer jurist denied the request
ANOTHER TECHNICALITY.
Then Mr.. Johnson asked for the dis
missal of the proceedings, on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction in the
matter. He argued that the court had
lost its jurisdiction by not following the
provisions of the statutes with reference
TO election contests. These provisions
were, he said, that the contest must be
heard at a special session of the court,
and within twenty days after the date set
for this special session. This contest
said Mr.. johnson, had suffered numer-
Gus continuances, amounting in all to
over forty days. He cited authorities to
show that the court lost its jurisdiction
after the twentieth day, and a dismissal
should follow.
Attorney Jones disputed this argu-
ment. He said the contest had been con-
tinued on afiidavits and by consent of
both sides. The court had not lost its
Jurisdiction.
MUST PROCEED.
Judge Prewett denied Mr.. Johnson's
motion. He said that under the old Con-
stitution it was provided that election
contests should be heard at special ses-
sions OF the County Court NOW the SUI
perior Court, because the court only met
ut stated periods, and the rights of the
contestant might be interfered with. But
under the new Constitution special seS-
s;ons were unnecessary, as the Superior
Court was constantly in session. The
court being continually in session there
could be no discontinuance of its juris-
diction.
It was now quite late in the afternoon,
and as Mr.. Johnson's supply of objec-
lions were exhausted an adjournment
was taken until O'Clock this morning,
when the taking OF testimony will begin.