The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-05
ON CONTESTED ELECTIONS
Two Decisions Handed Down By the
Supreme Court Yesterday.
Elkhsrt Circuit Court Roasted" by Judge
Hackney-McClure Murder Case Goes to
the J%ury-Phsse of the Tax Suits.

The Supreme Court yesterday handed
down an opinion in the contested election
case of jeremiah Bechtel va. John w. AL.
bin over the Office of commissioner of Elk
hart county. The trial court had given o
decision in favor of AlbiD. and Bechrel had
appealed. The canvassinG board had
previously found that Albln had received
4.104 votes and that Bechtel bad received
4.092 votes. There were about eighty votes
thrown ont on account of irregularity, and
the contest was instituted over these.
They were preserved as the law requires
and wero made . part of the record.
The appeal from the canvsssinR
board related to forty-swo votes
thrown ont, which Bechtel claimed
should have been counted for him. The
Su preme Court inspected the rejected bal
lots and applying rules according both
to it's own view of the law and also &C
cording to decisions of the court in pre-
vious cases. decided that each Of the can
didates had received 4,120 votes. of which
there was no question. and that as there
were thirty-six votes of moro or less ques-
tiOa ~ oRpOAAoh a PP 00A
not in any event have the plurality. The
decision of the trial court was therefore
reversed and the clerk of the court was in
structed to make out q certificate of cleo
ti0n for the appellant. The decision was
written By Judge Hackney.
In the course of the opinion the Judge
took occasion to soy that the Australian
law does not intend that the action of the
election officers in contests shall be final.
The Australian law. it is declared. does not
repeal the former laws concerning the mode
of making q contest The stamp. it is said,
may be used to make q Distinguishing mark.
but 1t is not the intention of the law to
leave the question whether o mark is lille.
gal or not to the election board. Tn court
declares that the only proper rule TO deter
mine the intention of the voter IS to insist
upon the letter of the law as to the proper
place for the marking of the ballot. The
trial judge Is given TO understand that he
was not required to write q legal opinion
to be made q part of the record. The Office
of O special hiding does not permit OF q
dissertation on the questions or law or of
fact, nor Of the personal viewso of the Judge.
The Supreme Court yesterday made q
final decree In the long protracted election
case which came up from Knox county. 1t
was the first litigation under the Aus
tralian election law, and at the time at
tracted q great deal of attention. The cleo
tion " as a special one for q councilman in
the city Of VIncennes. the contestants be-
lux Celltuhu Olu1Ocli 6Du COnn Ia. OICou.
The former received l22 votes and the lat
ter lie votes. but Green contested on the
ground that three votes for Gimbell were
fraudulent. The trial cOury held that
neither was elected, and the decision yes
terday was only as to the liability for costs.
The lower court held Green for the costs.
but the Supreme Court reverses this and
holds that Gimbell 10 liable.
Mcclure Case in the Jury's Hands.
q C1--- 5000 >-c --- a. AAn
| Jury q few minutes after 4 Is!ock yesterday
afternoon. Attorney Spaau did not con.
cIude his argument fog the defense Monday
afternoon, and occupied about two hours
OF the courts time yesterday morning.
Prosecutor Hoffman then made the closing
argument for the State, concluding at
| o'clock. The court then read the instruc-
tions to the jury. which were q concise
statement of the law governing such cases.
briefly summing up the different degrees of
homicide and the defenses that might
legally be interposed. He explained In
the doctrine of reasonable doubt which en-
ters into all criminal trials. Special in.
struotions were asked by the defense and
given by the court. as follows: I'm de-
termininR the question as to whether
| the defendants lad reasonable grounds for
cider the evidence relating to Philip
Chat Bryan's reputation for peace and
| uuietude. If known to the defendant at the
time of the shooting; for If you should
find that said Bryan's reputation was bad
for peace and quietude. and that defend
ant had knowledge that Philip Bryan was
a dangerous man. OF had reason to believe
him to be so. he is entitled TO have that
fact considered in determining the char
acter of his action, and also his condition
ss to lntoxicstion. if that aggravated any
dangerous tendencies and was known by
the defendants to do so; but you would not
be justified in scquitting the defendant. If
you should otherwise be convinced of his
guilt, merely because at the time of the
shooting he was engaged. If he was SO. in
on alteration with a man having a bad
reputation for peace. or with one who was
also intoxicated"