San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-01-22
THE McCALL-cAMPBELL CASE.
A Number of Witnesses Examined
Today.


In the Mccall. Campbell QUO warranto
case today six witnesses were exam med.
to-wit Henry Fest. butcher OF No l7OS
South Flores street: W. X. Bartlett, clerk,
No. 435 South Flores street; c. A. Stueb-
ben, clerk, corner Dakota and South
Covers streets; Jacob Schmetter, Vine
street South Heights; Francis j.
Bowen, architect, No. 1916 South Flores
street: d. L. Addington, corner OF Epson
and West Mason streets.
Mr.. Bartlett testified that he voted in
precinct No. ,, and remained there about
fifteen minutes TO see what was going on.
He said he is a Demo rat and did not
support the Independent Reform ticket.
He said he saw Mexican at the place,
and saw Dwyer beckon to the Mexican
and that Dwyer made ticket out for him
and gave it to him.
Mr.. Schmetter stated that he voted at
precinct No. Is, at Jonas, corner Of Santa
Clara and Peach streets. He can't speak
English and one OF the jurymen was
called upon to interpret. From the evil
dence ii was learned that Schmetter
asked Mr.. Stuebben to prepare his ballot
for him. He wanted to vote ticket with
Henry Umscheid's name on 1t. While
Stuebben was in the booth, fixing up his
own ticket, some one told Schmetter
that Henry Umscheid's name is
also on this ticket" (meaning Frank
UmScheid.) Stuebben heard this and
wanted to explain to Schmetter, but he
was told to go away and mind his own
business. Stuebben said that Schmetter
came up to him and asked him TO assist
him in preparing his ballot, and
that he wanted 20 vote for Henry
Umscheid. Steubben then wrote the
names of the Democratic State ticket and
the Independent Reform ticket on a slip
Of paper and gave 1t TO SShmetter. The
latter claims that when he presented his
ticket at the ballot box it was laid aside,
and that he don't know what became of
1t. He says he is an old man and that his
memory is not so good as formerly, and
those for whom he voted, excepting
Henry UmScheid. He also stated
that the people whom he requested
to prepare his ticket did not fix 1t
as he requested and that he voted for the
candidate on the right side Of the ticket,
instead of those on the left, as he intend
ed. He does not remember the nameSsof
the people who fixed his ballot sheet
Mr. Bowen testified that he was clerk
at precinct No. Is and had credentials
from the Republican executive committee.
He said that older officers at the poll did
not want to let him in. He said that Mr..
Faust and Mr.. Seffel were there to pre-
pare the ticket for illterate people
and that Mr.. Faust was not
over polite in his treatment towards vOt-
ers. He said that Faust acted as reading
clerk and that be occasionally made a
mistake, to which Bowen called attention,
and that Faust then corrected it. Bowen
also testified that voters were asked If
they said yes" and every name
on that ticket was then scratched
but NoOnan'S. Bowen said that the ar
rangement of the place did not seem sat
iSfactOry to him, but that he submitted to
the clerks and officers because they were
longer inOflice.
FOR DESTROYING OF BALLOT.
Among the indictments reported by the
grand jury yesterday was one against
Juan Padilia, charged with fraudulent
ly, wickedly and wilfully destroy
ing and SURPRISING and Sc
creting a ballot lawfully cast by an auth
vPmber g. He gave bond in the sum OF
$50 with Jose CaSSianO and Thad Smith
as SureteS.
FORTY FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
Judgment by default was rendered in
the following cases:
j IL. B-ackctt vs.. c. Perner, debt on
nOJe ana lOTclOSUTe.
f. GroOs e Co., VS.. p. TyrraSch, on
A. II. Jacquard vs.. w. B! buchanan, on
prOmiSsOry note.
The Hooper Mayer company VS.. James
Chapman ct al debt.
Other cases wee disposed Of as fol
lows:
Kate n. Robbins VS.. f. A. Marshall,
ct al, debt; dismissed.
The Grand Haven Leather company VS..
Charles J. LanghOlz, on prOmtssOry note;
dismissed for want OF prosecution.
Charles l.. kemper. VS.. II. j. Carson,
garnishment; dismissed for want Of
prosecution.
The Crystal Ice and Manufacturing
company VS.. Nelson Mackey, on promiS-
sorry note.
John S. Lockwood VS.. Henry Sartor, on
DrOmiSsOry note.
Jeremiah Ward VS.. j. Il. Rodriguez,
debt and to forecIose lien.
ID. Sullivan IL Co, VS.. Geo. W. Saun-
derS ct al, on promiSSOry note: Judgment
by default against Price, Graves and
Saunders, and set for Friday.
The City of San Antonio VS.. Wn. Muth
debt and foreclosure of lien; dismissed at
plaintiffs costs.
The City OF San Anto 10 VS.. August
Wette, debt and foreclosure Of lien; dis
missed at plaintiffs cost.
Lottie Bailey, applicant, VS.. Flora
Stotts, respondent, habeaS corpus; dis
missed for want of prosecution.
Theresa Burns VS.. James William Burns,
divorce and injunC ton; dismissed for
want OF prosecution.
w. j. Young VS. c. s. p. Johnson, to
try title: judgment for plaintiff.
The City of San Antonio VS.. John L.
Baylor to recover taxes, dismissed.