Morning journal and courier., 1894-06-14
JEROME vS. MARTIN.

The Suit Begun Before Judge Prem | tice in the Superior Court Yesterday ] The Republicans Score the First Po1nt-Judge Prentice Decides That ] Witnesses Can Testify for Whom They Voted at the Election of Sealer of Weights and Measures-A Large Number of Local P0liticianstn in Court -Interesting Developments Expect
 ed as the Trial Progresses-Trial
 Will Be Resumed Next Wednes-
 day.
 The superior court room yesterday after noon was filled with both republican and democratic members of the court of com mon council, and anyone entering the room and not being acquainted with the facts might with justice have imagined that joint session of the court of common coun- oil was being held for the purpose of elect ing 8 eealer of weights and measures. Such, however, was not the case, but the reason for the large attendance Of politi- clans was due to the fact that the euit of Luther E. Jerome against City Clerk Mar tin to compel the latter to change the rec ords of the court of common council in re- lation to the election of sealer of weights and measures was on trial in that room.
 All the republican members of the court of common council had been summoned in and each member was present in propria persona. Mayor Sargent and Alderman Shanley, (dem ). the latter being one of the tellers who counted the vote on the night of3 the election, City Clerk Martin, Com missioner Clancy and Charles Havy had also been summoned in and had obsyed the call. Others present were Peter Carberry, the present incumbent of the office of sealer of weights and measures; Commis- sioner McGsnn, Sheriff Tomlinson, Regis trar John P. Carney and number of the other lesser lights of local democracy, all curious and at ths same tims anxious to know the result of the contest.
 As will be remembered, the case was brought.b .by Luther E Jerome against City Clerk Mertin to compel him to change the record of the court of common council de- claring Peter Csrbsrry elected sealer of weights and measures. Jerome was the republican candidate for ths ssme cffics against Carbsrry. He claims that he ia entitled to the office. owing to the fact that the thirty republican members of the court of comlon council, being 6 maj ajority of two in the body, have, since the elsc- tion, sworn under oath that they voted for him, and that bsing the case the city clerk must have made an error ir declarirg Carberry elected. Attorneys Ely and Ben ton were present looking after the Rspubli- can interests in the case, while Dfisooll ard Bishop appeared for City Clerk Mar tin, and O. s. Hamilton for Carberry. The first witness of thu day was City Clerk Martin. He testified substantially | that Aldermen Sanborn and Shsnley were 1 ths tellers on the night of the election and 1 that he had announced the vote ss 1t had | been returned to him. He also certified ss to the names of the members of the court of common council who were qualified to vote at the election Februsry4.
 | The next witness was Alderman Sanborp, | the republican teller st the election. He was asked several questions of minor i'm 1 portance, after which Attorner Ely asked 1 him how he voted on ths night of the cleo tion as bstween Carherry and Jerome. Hardly had this question been propound- ed when it was objected to by the counsel l for the defendant, and unnecessarily lou z arguments were indulged in as to it's ad- instability into the evidence. Corpora tion Counsel Driscoll claimed that it was l an attempt to find out party traitors. | He also claimed that ths republicans | might perjure themselves on the witness stand and swear that they voted for Jerome
  l The election was held legally and it's re- | suits declared legally, said the corporation | counsel, and there can be 10 evidence in- l troduced to effect the case in any manner 1 unless accident, mistake or fraud can be | shown.
 1 In reply Attorney Ely claimed that the l election in question was not conducted on l the same plan as other elections and tha. in consequence the ballots hsd not bsen pre-. served. The plaintiffs claim Is that there has been fraud, and it is for the purposs | of proving this fraud thas the republican | members of the court of common council have been summoned in to testify as tc how they voted, and there is no way in | which to learn the number of ballots cast as they were destroyed after ths election.
 After considerable further argument Judge Prentice decided to admit the evi. dencs in order that prima facie cass
 might be established. The attorneys fo1
 the defense took an exception to this
 ruling. After this Attorney Hamilton
 asked the judge to instruct the witnesses
 how they voted. Attorney Ely objected tc
 this and then followed more arguments and quoting of authorities but finally Mr
 Ely waived the objection temporarily and the examination of Alderman Sanborn was
 resumed.
 Mr. Sanborn testified that he voted fol Jerome and saw Aldermen Skif, Hitler, Lowe and Morgan also cast their votes for Jerome On cross-examination he said that he perceived 10 evidences of fraud l while taking tha ballot and that though | there might have been opportunities for fraud to Do pracsicsd, he did not expsc, any and consequently had not looked for 1t.
 This practically closed the testimony of the aldermen, ,and with 1t the trial of the case l for the day. Judge Prentice then stated that he would bs kept busy with the bar examinations until Tuesday of next week, /, and in consequence continued the further trial of the cass until next Wednesday. l The decision of Judge Prentice in ad- l hitting the evidence is regarded as big victory for the republicans. Saida prom inent republican yesterday afternoou after the decision:
 | The cass Is just TOW where we want t.. Either all thirty of the republicans voted | for Jerome or two of them sold their votes and vot=d for Csrberry If all swear that | they voted for Jerome 1t establishes one Of | two things. Either there was fraud or mistake in declaring Carbsrry elected, or two members of the board of ! common council voted for Carbsrry and have since perjured themselves. | Tn tho latter event the traitors and per | jurers cannot long remain hidden, for the democrats in their own defense will be compelled to show up who these two are, and the vote was really 30 to 98 in favor of Carbefry. Thus we shall accomplish au object. The interesting part of the pro- | ceedipgs have not yet even commenced.