Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-07-16
NEWPORT NEWS MAYORAITY.
The Fight in Court Commences In
Earnest.

NEWPORT NEWS. July 15.-(Speclal)-
When Judge Barham announced in the
Corporation Court this morning that he
was prepared to take up the contested
election case to determine the mayoralty
OF Newport News. Mr.. A. c. Garrett
counsel for the contestee, introduced
Judge G. Tucker B.Oose.- OF the Norfolk
Bar. who had been retained TO assist in
the defence. Judge Brooke then qualified
TO practice law in the court, after which
Sergeant Nilsted proceeded to call the
witnesses who had been summoned TO
appear in behalf of the contestee ana
contestants Judge Barham issued rule
against 4 number of the witnesses VINO
were not present in court, and during the
interval pending the arrival of these, Mr
Garrett stated 10 the Court that on to-
morrow he would file a bill OF demurrer
to each and every allegation made in the
notice filed with the Clerk or Courts.
Mr.. Bickford contended that a demurrer
would not lie I'm the present cause; that
his Honor must try the case on the merits
of the election. and that the complalnants
were not informed as to the ground the
contestee held for asking that a demurrer
be granted, consequently he did not see
how one could properly issue. Mr.
Rickford read from the cause OF Richard
son vs. Farrow in support OF what ne
contended. Judge Brooke maintained his
plvilege of demurrer, citing several cases
of recent date from Pennsylvania and
Virginia authorities. He submitted that
a demurrer was a plea at bar, and that
there was no substantial reason why the
Court could not rule in support OF II.
MP. BICKFORD AGAIN.
M
practice to demur, after filing an an
swer. without the permission Of the Court;
an answer TO the complaint had been duly
filed with the Clerk of Courts in ac-
cordance with law, and if a demurrer
could be granted under such circum-
stances. il was an action, the legality ID
which he had never before bec- -wure.
He could not see how the Pennsylvania
case Of Sherrett, referred TO by Judge
Brooke. could apply in this cause, where
the Pennsylvania md Virginia statutes
differ so materially. The injunction
upon the Judge to hear the election and
returns alone upon the merits was man
datory and controlling. In commenting
on a remark made by Judge Brooke to the
effect that II is the general practice TO
demur. Mr. Bickford said that bad GUS
toms cannot make good law He con-
tended that because It has been custo-
mary in Pennsylvania and even in VIZ
ginia courts to recognize the practice,
such observance should not control hI7
Honor in this court
JUDGE BROOKE SMILED.
+ Judge Brooke smiled frequently during
the course of Mr. Bickfords remarks.
Mr.. Bickford noticed this. and in con-
cludlng said that he doubted not that
what he had said amused his friend more
than would the decision of the court in
not allowing the demurrer.
Mr.. Garrett stated that he did not take
issue with Mr.. Bickford as to the obliga-
tion upon his Honor 10 hear this case
on the merits OF the election. The law
he said. granted the right 10 demur; the
nrincipaI ground for asking for a de-
murrer was that the complainant had not
complied with the requirements OF the
statue in filing their notice Of contest.
Judge Brooke took occasion here TO
state that he was not smiling in derision
AT anything his friend. Mr.. Bickford' had
said. but that he admired the keenness
with which the attorney for the other
side dissected the law In the matter,
and had smiled in approval.
Judee Barham stated that he under
stood the nature of the point I'm conten-
lion between the opposing counsel. and
requested that they leave with him the
several authorities that had been referred
TO He said that he would go over them
carefully and render his decision after
recess.
THE JUDGES DECISION.
When court reconvened at 2I5 o'clock
Indge Barham stated that he had re-
fer-ed 10 the statute and authorities sub
mitted. and had arrived at the conclu-
SION that he would not be justified In al
lowing a demurrer to be filed after an
answer to the complaint mad peen Med.
The attorney for the contestee had ap-
neared In court at the last term and
asked for continuance on the ground
that he wished to take depositions.
Judge Brooke thereupon asked that GER
tain insufficient specifications In the com
nIalnt be stricken out. and then left the
argument In the hands of Mr. Garrett.
Who reviewed all OF the allegations, and
asked that each and every one Of them