The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-12-14

California Supreme Court VIII Prob
sblv Refuse the Citation Sought
San Francisco, Dec. 13-The hall Of the
state supreme court was crowded this
morning when the gubernatoTial election
contest came on for hearing. Ex-JustIce
Van r. Patterson and Joseph Nouges ap-
peared as principal attorneys for the
board of election commissioners, defend
ants, although in reality they represent
the interests OF Budd George 4. knight
and several other lawyers appeared in
behalf of the petitioner. Chairman Corn
wall, Of the Republican state central COM
mittee The counsel for Cornwall. or
Estee attempted to secure a delay OF the
proceedings, but were unsuccessful. At
torney Patterson. on behalf OF the defend
ants. then opened the argument confln-
ing his argument exclusively to the legal
questions involved. as TO whether the
petition alleged facts sufficient to war
rant the issuance OF a citation TO the
board OF election commissioners to come
before the court and defend their Off
cial acts. lie argued that the petitioner,
Cornwall. was not the real party IN in
terest. ina snuch as the statute requires
that an action OF this kind must be
brought by a party who Is injured. Corn
wall. he declared could not be injured
By the election Of Budd He declared.
too, that the petition asked the court to
CO Indirectly what il could not do direct
ly, that Is. hear the contest over the
election OF governor. which can only be
heard by the legislature.
Ex-Ju3ge DAILY. OF Ventura. arguing for
the petitioner. Insisted that all that was
sought by the writ OF mandate was to
compel the board of election to canvass
those returns which were IN proper legal
form. and 10 compel precinct election
officers TO fulfil their legal duties and
make proper returns Interrupting him.
Justice he Haven said: The question.
as I understand IL, is whether there were
legal returns 20 canvass. and what re-
turns were legal" Having been straight
enei out on this poirt. DAILY declared that
the election commissioners could not can
vsss any returns not authenticated as
THE law requires. and that their efforts
70 correct such returns by citing the cleo
ton officers n appear and complete their
work was not according 20 law. DAILY
asked thar the election commissioners
~ ordered 90 direct them what course 20
follow WITH returns not properly anthem
tscate7 4 decision Of the Illinois SUI
preue court was read, in which II was
held that where returns tad ret been
signed. through the ignorance OF mad
vertance Of the election officers, they
might correct the returns by signing GER
tthcates at any time before the vote had
been canvsssesf. Petitioners refused 70
conce3s that this was law. bat Justice
Beatty minated thar such would be
considered goof law. Long and tedious
arguments then followed ard a motion
20 dismiss the petition WIS rnaaa Jus
tees ne Haven ard Garroute said that
r the returns had been properly certified
20 before the canvass % votes was fa-
isaea they were willing 20 grant the mo-
ton now. The decision ~ the court was
reserved. however. uutil % O'Clock to-
rznrrow morning
u Il the general belief that the court
VII refuse 20 issue the citation peu-
toned for.