Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-10-29

! Mossrs W u. peveridge. Hill Monta-
! que, and A. r.. Courtney appeared for the
| defence.
THE defence DEMURRED.
| Mr. Beverage demurred to the petition
| and In support OF hts demurrer said that
| the law allowed them a trial by jury III
/ mandamus proceedings. lie claimed that
! 70 was irregular for a party Of citizens 70
I apply for a mandamus. and that man
| damus could only lie on n petition Of one
! person. lie said that no facts were al
| legged I'm the petition on which a man
/ damus might lie. and that the only APP
| phcation made for inspection Of the BOOKS
was made after nghtial
MIR. Royal replied In a vehement man
/ ner. and said that all the petitioners
/ wanted was the right guaranteed any
! citizen 10 inspect the books at any ana
/ ,-l times. In support OF his application
/ for mandamus Mr.. Royal referred 10 the
! decision Of the Court OF Appeals In clay
/ vs.. Ballard 81 Virginia. Isl. The opinion
/ OF the majority. Of the court in that case
| was delivered by Judge l.. J.. Lewis. pres
| ont Republican candidate for Congress IN
I this district Judges Hinton and Fauntle-
roy cOncurring and Judge Richardson abb
| senO. Judge Lacy. however, dissented
from the opinion Of the majority and de-
/ lvered an able opinion in support OF the
/ position taken by the counsel for Pettus-
( viz. that John c. Small, not being a citi-
| zen Of Henrico county, nor voter, had
I no interest I'm the observation-disclosures at
/ Shocmakers Precinct. and, therefore. had
no right 20 inspect or copy them.
ANSWER OF THE DEFENCE.
/ The Court overruled the demurrer and
took the ground that as the facts alleged
/ in the petition were admitted I'm the de-
murror the case should be proceeded
with.
Counsel for the defence asked time in
which to file their answer 10 the petition
In writing and they withdrew to the
Clerks office. where the following paper
was drawn up:
The Answer Of George Pettus Registrar,
OF Shoemaker's Election District Hen
rico County TO a Petition for Mandamus
OF John c. Small
This respondent answering saith that
one J. c. Small, as agent for parties I'M
known to your respondent. on the night
Of the 26th day Of october, 1896. came
to his house. and demanded of the re-
spondent that he be permitted TO copy
the registration books Of said election
district, IL being at night, and your
respondent believes that said Small had
no right TO make a copy of his books
and your respondent. being unable TO re-
main. and not wishing to trust said
Small with his registration books. re-
fused 10 allow him 10 copy said books
for himself or as agent for unknown par
ties. That said Small then proposed
70 your respondent TO make for him
(SmalD. a copy Of said book. and promised
to pay for same. but did not offer
any price or tender any money. This
respondent refused TO make the copy
.fsl4 n.
credit Mr.. Small, he being VIGOROUSLY
insolvent This respondent is advised
that j. c. Small, not being a resident
or voter in Henrico county, he had no
right TO either inspect or copy said regis
tration books
This respondent, furthering answering.
denies that the petitioners or any other
person or persons have been unlawfuly
stricken from the registration books of
ShOemaker's election district. Further
answering, says that certain persons were
stricken from the registration books
of said precinct, from a list fur
nished him by five qualified voters
Of said election district and upon proof
that said list had been duly written or
printed. and posted at not less than three
public places in said district including
the voting-place therein. and all the re-
quirements Of the law having been COM
piled with. including the taking of tesu-
mony for and against the right OF the
persons named I'm said notice TO be re-
tanned upon the registration books.
Your respondent denies that he refused
20 allow J. G. Small to inspect his said
registration books. as alleged in said
petition.
VOLUNTEERED TO PRODUCE BOOK.
The Court. after reading the answer.
took the ground that it covered more
than was alleged in the petition. Judge
Wexford suggested that If the books
were brought into court. and the plain
tiffs were allowed TO inspect them.
the case might go over until to-day. He
thought the plaintiffs We're entitled TO
nandamug. but hoped it would not be
necessary to award 1t.
Mr.. Montague said he knew OF no rea-
son why this should not be done. Mr..
Pettus. the registrar, who was present,
voluntarily agreed to produce the book,
and the Court adjourned the case over
until this morning Ut II o'clock, and al
the suggestion OF Mr.. Royal 1t was
agreed that the court should meet In the
Circuit-Court room in the city Han.
Mr. Royal then called up the cases OF
W. j. Robinson Addison Lewis, Allen
Anthony. and Lewis Dabney. who
claimed that their names had been UNI
lawfully stricken from the registration
books Of Shoemaker's Precinct. and filed
petitions from them, praying that their
names be placed back thereon. The Court
decided that this might be a case for a
jury 20 pass upon. and continued II over
until 10 o'clock this morning, appointing
the Circuit Court Of Richmond as the
place for hearing If. The defence read
the petitions ana promised TO have their
answers ready at that time.