The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1895-09-13
ARGUMENT COURT.

Judge Metzgar of Williamspor'
heard testimony in the injunction
proceeding in the Conyngham and
Centralia Poor District case proceed
ings in Equity, on Saturday.
Messrs. Wilhelm of Pottsville, anC
Wintersteen and Barkley represented
the Complainants, and Messrs. Scar
let Of Danville, and Freeze of this
place the Respondents. The pro
ceedings were on a motion Of Com
plainants to continue the injunction.
Attorneys for Respondents move
the Court to dismiss the bill for the
reasons:
Ist. The Court has no jurisdic
tion.
aDd. For want of proper parties
3rd. For want of Equity.
4th. Because there is remedy in
law.
The Court reserved its decision on
these objections, and the following
testimony was taken:
G. Nj. QUICK SWORN.
"Have been Prothonotary and
Clerk of the several Courts of
Columbia County for five years. Was
Deputy Proth'y for ten years. In
canvassing the vote where there are
more than one election District in the
Township, we add the total vote for
the several candidates, and the one
having the largest vote is recorded as
elected. By the writing upon the re-
turn sheet for the Spring election Of
1895, in Conyngham Township, Peter
Lenlhan was elected Poor Director.
The figures gave Patrick Cain the
largest vote. We made up the re-
turns from the writing, and not from
the figures.
In f. North District, Lenihan had
7S votes, and Cain I24.
There was no discrepancy between
the writing and figures.
In w. North District, Lenihan had
4S votes, and Cain Io.
There was no discrepancy in this
District.
In E. South District, Lenihan had
s. votes, and Cain 4S.
In this District it was not written,
simply figures.
In w. South District, Lenihan had
10 votes, and Cain az.
There was no discrepancy in this
district.
In West District, had AZ votes, and
Cain 3S. In this District there was a
discrepancy. Opposite the written
number At in Lenihan's vote, were
the figures 81, and opposite the writ
ten number 3S in Gains vote, was the
figures 40.
The retuin shows erasures at figures
81 and 40. They were filed with me
by the election officers as follows
Returns in E. S., and w. S., and
West, February 2oth, at II o'clock A.
M. E. N. and w. N, on the same
day at 3 P. M. Lenihan filed his
oath of office March 80, 1895, and the
affidavit was made before David
Walsh Notary Public, March 2nd.,
1895, according to the returns as
written, Lenihan received goo votes,
and Cain 27I votes in the District.
The figures made the vote as follows
Lenihan $50, Cain a82.
| made my return from the writing
In the return sheets with the excep-
tion of f South, where there was no
writing. All figures. The contest was
started soon after. Leaihan filed his
oath of Office after the contest had
been commenced. Cain filed his GER
tihcate of election on February a6th
1895 and Lenihan filed his March 90
1895. The petition for contest was
filed March 9 1895. Don't know who
the return Judges issued a certificate
to-"
MARTIN AsHTAN -" Live at Free
land. In February last lived in West
election District
Mr.. Scarlet objects to the testi-
mony of the witness, as he is not CON-
petent to contradict the returns, and
for the reasons as given above. Court
allows the witness to proceed with his
testimony reserving the decision, 81
was clerk for the board in the West
District. | was to see that the votes
were tailed. Was to tally each vote
as they were called off. l entered
the vote on the tally sheet. Some of
The figures are in my hand writing"
Return sheet shown witness) 81 can
zee erasures in it. Peter Lenihan had
~ votes and Cain SO. The tally