Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-12-20

trict could now be made; that the said
board of inspectors, so far as concerns the
duty Of ascertaining the number OF votes
given for assessor in the election districts
comprised within said Second Assessment
district, is functus officio. And that they
are further advised that the certificates
given as aforesaid are by law conclusive.
And the said defendants further aver
that no demand has ever been made upon
them by the said petitioner, or by any one
else on his behalf, that they should assem-
BILE in the City Hall to do the acts and
things prayed in said petition.
And the said defendants further say that
they are advised, and therefore aver, that
the said petitioner has an adequate remedy
for any supposed grievances as alleged in
said petition otherwise than by the issu-
ance of writ of mandamus as prayed.
Said defendants further say that they
are advised, and therefore aver, that the
facts stated in the petition filed in the said
cause do not constitute ground for the
issuing of mandamus as prayed in said
petition, and said court being without
jurisdiction in the premises.
Wherefore, by reason of the premises,
the said defendants are advised, and there
fore aver, that the said writ of mandanus
ought not to issue rs prayed for in the
said REALTORS petition, and pray to be
hence dismissed with the reasonable costs
Ill TINS Denhll eApenucu.
THE REPUBLICAN INSPECTORS.
On Monday Charles NJ. Curtis and
George A. Elliott, attorneys for 81 de-
PENDANTS in the Hudson mandamus case,
filed 10 answers representing all tho
Republican inspectors of the Second
assessment district, in the prothonotary's
office.
Ten Of these inspectors say in their
answers that they did not attend the
board of canvas on November 7tE in
the City Hall. They expressed their
willingness to make a canvass accord
ing to law, admitting the statements of
the petition to be true. The names are
Alfred S. Burton, ST., Third ward;
Thomas II. Robinson, Lewis Lichten-
stein, Charles NJ. Smith, William II.
Riley and James p. Prentiss, all Of the
Fifth ward; Henry G. Russell, Eleventh;
John Wood, Samuel w. Burnite and
Clarence A. Ford, Twelfth.
Eleven of the inspectors say in their
answers that they refused to sign the
certificate of Earley's election because
the returns from the two districts were
not canvassed nor considered. They also
express their willingness to make a re-
canvass or count according to law. The
eleven are Daniel b. Common and
Francis Hoffecker, Third; William II,
Bowers, Harry q. Griffith, Townsend
w. Miller, Fifth; George w. Moore
Robert A. Taylor, Norman Yeatman
and Harlan A. Lamplugh, Tenth; Theo-
dore Brown, Eleventh; Philip Plunkett
| Twelfth.
The remaining ten inspectors are those
who signed Earlcy's certificate. They
in their answers assign the reason for
signing. Some were ignorant or misin-
formed that the returns from the Sixth
district, Fifth ward, and Third district
Twelfth ward, had not been canvassed
or considered at the time they signed
the certificate. Others say that they
were misinformed as to the character Of
the certificate, and did not know thai
they were signing the final certificate Of
Earley1s election as assessor of the
Second district. They are willing t.
make recanvsss, believing that the
certificate of Earley's election is false
incorrect and illegal. The names o.
these inspectors are James g. KEENAN,
Samuel q. Logan, William I. Morris
Harry S. Pogue, Third ward; William
T. Crossley and Abraham P. Beecher
Fifth; Leslie q. Dayett, James F. Wood
Elmer Il. Kirk, Tenth, and Vincent r
Miller, Eleventh.