The record-union., 1894-12-21
Afternoon Session.

In the Tenth Precinct one of the ballots
was stamped with ink of two different
colors. Oatman objected to its being
counted, but it was counted for ON ell
and Irvine.
The result of the count in the precinct
was: Bugbey 5, HeintZ 81, johnson 90,
O'Nel S9 For AsSesSor-Baumann IS,
Berkey AZ, Irvine %, Greer 26, Robertson
l.
johnson gained and o. Neil lost l. Bau-
mann lost 4, Berkey gained 3, Greer
lost and Robertson 4.
Gett asked that, instead of taking up
the whole count alter the Second District
was completed, that certain deSlgnat ted
precincts be counted. 1t was settled that
the Fifth and Eighth Precincts of the
Third Supervisor District and the Folsom
Precinct be counted in the afternoon.
When the ballots for the Fiitn Precinct
or the Third Supervisor District were
taken from the envelope they were found
not ito have been strung. Baker moved
that the precinct be thrown out, for fail
ureto comply with the law in that respect.
w. Il. hamilton was sworn, and stated
that he was present at the count in that
precinct and that the ballots were taken
out three or four ut a time ana read by
the Judges alternately. They were not
strung as Tar as he saw. lie did not see
any evidences OF fraud in reading the bal
lots, but was not IN position 10 see the
names as they were read.
Baker ask ed leave to amend the plead =
ings so as to include the statement that
the ballots had not been properly strung,
hut Bruner objected saying That ii the
pleadings were amended he would have
10 send lor the election board and have
them testify as to whether there was any
fraud committed or not.
Baker withdrew his objection and the
precinct was counted, the court saying
that the most of the mem bers OF the eiec-
ton board were well-kuown business
men and above suspicion of fraud. The
only remedy any interested party could
have was to swear out warrant in the
Police Court and have them punished for
their carelessness.
One OF the clerks stated to the court that
the ballots were strung, but as they could
not be got into the envelope in that shape
they were, therefore, taken Off the string.
The count was: Bugbey, q; Heintz. 10;
Johnson, "a: O'Neil, Is. For Assessor
Baumann, Al; Berkey, 81; Greer, IS; r.
vine, 10; Robertson, 2.
one vote for Johuson and Berkey was
thrown out on account of a cross in the
lower corner. Johnson lost /, Baumann
gained and Irvine lost l.
The contestants and their counsel held
a consultation, and decided to ask for a
recount of the Sixth Precinct of the
Fourth District (Oak Hall, which was
granted. The impression prevailed that
unless some decided change was found in
this precinct and Folsom the contest
would be abandoned by the contestants.
One ballot for Johnson was thrown out,
being stamped in front OF his name in
stead of after it,
The result was: Heintz, IS: johnson,
So; O'Neil, SO. For Assessor-Baumann
i: Berkey, 81; Greer, 81; Irvine, 70.
HeintZ and Johnson gained l each and
O'Neil gained :. Berkey and Greer each
gained l and Irvine lost l.
The Sixteenth Precinct of the Fourth
District tFolsom) was next counted.
The result was: HeintZ 81; Johnson,
Jos; Lee, ,; O'Neil, l02. For Assessor
Baumann, 20; Berkey, 81; Greer 80; Ir-
vine, 10: Robertson, z.
Johnson and O'Neil each gained l.
Berkey and Greer each gained l and Ir-
vine and Robertson each lost /.
Gett stated that as far as Mr.. Heintz
was concerned, be was willing to aban.
don the contest.
Baumann's attorney, Mr.. Baker, made
the same statement, and the court ordered
the contest dismissed as far as regarded
those two, on their payment OF the
proper costs.
Albert NJ. Johnson, O'Neirs attorney,
appeared shortly after and asked that tn(
suit be dismissed as far as O'NeiI was
concerned, which was ordered by The
court.
The total result, as far as the count was
proceeded with, is that HeintZ gained Il
johnson lost II. o. Neil gained s, Bau
mann ., Berkey s. Irvine ? aud Greer
l0saS 10