Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1892-02-13
Election Case Must Be Tried.


Tae cp.a.4e ranGe.el il tae Court tf Ap
ps2.e Tat sday Ia tie CASE OF Richardscu
aad o;het5 sgaiass Farrsr, judge t,mpcsasi'
ly OF the County Court OF Prince Edward
wgs an important document. TIE paper
Was prepared ky Judge F4uns,sros. The
o.s, eas 90 s2pioatlon for writ OF FER.
emptory manGemus from the County Court
OF Prince Edward asking thst the Court OF
Appeals set as'de and annul the order OF
let tribunal of Augutt T. 1891, Diminishing
tie complaint f surdry cit zens OF fa'te
rstlfn, gross frauds ard other irregularities
aGd iiegait' tee Ia the general elsction for
c3u t. oficets of Mag 2S 1881, and require
the j1dge to proceed and hear and determ.
ips The CONTEXT made hy complainant, as to
t1e election OF t'essurer, sheriff and ccmmls.
sicner OF t1a revenue.
The pst.t;oners, vino are twenty one
white citizens and vtt:r5 OF Pri1ce Edward
county, comprising members OF both polii-
ca! par ie3, make lengthy o6argts as to the
uaa1er IN which the elett on was conduit
et, aad silegs thtt William Fl. Ewing, fer
treasurer; e. T. C.Grk, for commirsionsr cf
tbs revenue, and Thcmss a. DIokerson fer
et tesif we're frsudulentIy credited With a
cgtt fer them snd which had been fraudu.
lentiy transferred from those for whom they
Gere casf, sDd that certificates OF election
were given to the candidates who receive
the smaller number Ct votes, Whereby, ss
they a!iege, the repGlt OF the contest was re-
yersed.
The paper recites that within the time
prescribed by lew the said Ewing, Clerk and
Dickerson appeared aud without demurrer,
plea IN abatement, or other dilato.y pro-
ceedioss, fled their counter complaints" "
natilcg forth the list OF voters alleged to heve
voted for their opponents which they would
oonteas.
The iseue having thus been joined, deposl-
lions we're taken end The case brough. up in
the place Edward Couaty Court In July,
1891. Several mo!ions wero made to dis.
m!ss or quasb the complaint. Tbs CONTEXT.
ants moved tie court to refuse leave to file
thtaa rlotiors, es being insufficient ia law
and contrary to tie statute. At the August
taErn tie order zee entered sustaining the
radtton OF the conte5iees.
Judge Earrsr, Ia hia ausH er, sGEi.ttd that
he bsd not heard the case en- It's meii;s or
the proofs, and without going into any inves-
ligat;cu whatever into the complaint dis
missed Il because Of the mlsjoinder Of the
defendants.
The Supreme Court deciled that the refusal Of
the ccu.t to hoar and determine the contest snd
ditmisns the complaint oa motion was not error
for which writ OF error would lie, and that the
m,acontep;ion OF III, complainants in obtaining
and the inprovidcnce Of the Circuit Court in
awarding the writ cannot effect the original juris.
Giction of this court to direct peremtory msnda-
mus to tho County Court OF Prince Edwsrd to
compsl it to reinstate, hear, and determine the
complaint ana the contts!, whi;h poremptory
nandaDu3 wts awarded.
Ihe opinion contirues: "All the requirements
OF ths atatu.e as to the complaint, 1t is conceded,
have been crmp.iod with. Tho statute does nos
limit tie contest to one defendant, ror require il
to embrace more than one, and it auuhcrizss and
r. qgi1ts no esdlng except the complaint aud
counter complsint; and the motion to tqussh
AID dsmiss the complaint for misj oinder of do
fcrdarts was rot legal and proper ples or de-
fence, where mere dilatory dsfences would lie
wtics our statue provides shall be made by Plea
in abatement only, and that under osth snd be-
fore suy Plea in b:r is msd,."
Judge Lacy dlssepted ia very ab!o opinion,
ard Jud 20 Hinton also dissented on tho ground
tLas tho case was in the Circuit Court of Prince
Edward now and g mandamus to the county judge
would not resCh IL.