The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-03-02
CONTESTED ELECTION.
Apiki Disputes the Seat If IA,
pahu for Kau.
The Chief Justice Sits March
24th for the Hearin3-H
VIII Take Place at
W'aiohinu.

TWAS announced in the ADyER-
User last week Monday that the
election of Kapahu in kau would
he contested.
An application has now been
filed in the Supreme Court by
forty-seyen voters of the district of
Kau, in the island of Hawaii. pray
ing for an investigation of what is
now alleged to De an illegal cleo
ton. The facts and circumstances
are as follows: There appears to
be two election precincts in the
district, and the opposing candi-
dates were J. \. Kapahu and 0. X.
Apiki For Kapahu the first pre-
cinct polled 81 votes and the sec
ond precinct polled l29 votes, being
a total of $50 for Kapahu; and for
Apiki the first precinct polled 43
votes and the second precinct
polled 125 votes, being a total of
16S votes for Apiki, or y votes
short of his opponent Kapahu.
The: petition goes on to state that
IN the first precinct fifteen votes
were cast. for Apiki which the in
spectors: of election refused and
failed 10 count, claiming that the
same were illegal and contrary to
law, because they were marked on
the left hand side of Apiki's name.
Although the petitioners admit
that such ballots were marked on
the left hand side, they claim that
said ballots are not Illegal by such
marking, but that they are legal
and should have been counted.
Another allegation is that one,
Kaaipoalima, being 4 nonresident
of the district, was not entitled by
law to register or vote in kau, bat
he registered and voted in the sec
ond precinct.
That the inspectors of election of
the first precinct, contrary 10 law,
held meeting for the registration
of voters on the 30th day of Janu-
airy, 1892, and then and there
registered over twenty names of
persons as voters for Representa-
tive in said precinct, and which
persons so registered voted az the
election.
That the inspectors OF election Of
the second precinct rejected one
vote cast for Apiki, claiming that
the cross was not opposite his
name. and was therefore illegal;
whereas petitioners claim that the
cross was opposite the name of
Apiki and should have been
counted.
To summarize, the petitioners
claim as follows:
First, that such meeting OF the
inspectors and registration Of voters
on the 30th day of January was
illegal, and that the election is
therefore void.
Second, that if all of the votes for
Apiki rejected by the inspectors
had been counted. and the vote of
said Kaaipoalima rejected, Apiki
would have received 4 majority of
all the votes cast and would have
been elected,
On the filing Of the above stated
petition, His Honor the Chief JUS
tice Immediately appointed the
24th inst. as a day for hearing the
application at the Court House in
Waiohinu, at l O'clock P. NJ, it
being required by the new election
law 10 hear the matters OF dispute
in the Judicial circuit wherein the
controversy arises
Notices were forwarded BY the
VI. G. Hall yesterday morning 10
the inspectors and 10 J. \. hapahu.
the candidate elect, apprising them
Of the contest being made
Annexed 10 the order made by
the Court Is the following state
ment made by the clerk Served
copies Of the annexed petition by
mailing the same % the above
named inspectors and 70 the said
J. \. Kspahu, there being no time
left 10 prepare summons, the
steamer having 70 leave in 3 very
few moments, the said copies being
addressed u Waiohinu, n the said
district o. Kan. with instructions
70 the postmaster tomake personal
delivery. Also sent : notice ID d
posted IN the said district q hau.
By mail. IS required by law