Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-12-10

t'Soa vi tduNdb6 Huu tu6
present ut said board shall, before any
adjournment or separation of said
board. make under their hands certifi-
Gates OF election in accordance with
the provisions of law in that behalf.
And these respondents further say that
ii was the duty OF the inspectors and
JUDGES Of election in the several hum
dreds and election districts of said
county to make and sign certificates
OF election in accordance with the form
OF the statute in that behalf. These
respondents aver that votes were given
in accordance with law at said election
in West Dover hundred in said county,
but aver that tho inspector and judges
OF election in said West Dover hun
dred did not make and sign any certifi-
cate Of election in their hundred, and
that no certificate of election for that
hundred was or can DO by the present
proceedings before said alleged board
OF canvass. Therefore, said alleged
board of canvass would not on the 9th
clay OF November last. nor could il on
the Odd day Of November last, in
obedience to the alternative writ of
nlandamns issued in these proceedings,
nor could it IL peremptory writ OF
mAndamus should be issued by the
court In said proceedings, ascertain
tho state of the election throughout
the county by calculating the aggre-
gate amount of all the votes for zach
Office that had bean given in all the
hundreds of the county for every per-
son voted for for such Office, nor could
said alleged hoard Of canvass make
under their hands the certificates as
by law required.
That the said respondents did, to-
gcther with Other alleged inspectors OF
the other hundreds and election dis
tricts in Kent county, meet ut tha
time and place as set forth in said
petition and that the said sheriff of
the said county did attend at the said
time and place, hut deny that he did
remain there continuously as the pre-
siding officer of the said alleged board
of canvass until its adjournment, and
further deny that tho persons therein
named did constitute d hoard of can
vaHs for the reason set forth in this
return.
That the said respondents admit
that paper purporting to be GER
tiiicate for each hundred or election
district represented by these respond.
ents was delivered to tho sheriff, eX-
cept certificates of election for the
Eastern election district Of Duck
Creek hundred and for West Dover
hundred.
That said respondents return for
answer to the 18th paragraph of said
section 6 Of said petition that there
was no certificate of election in West
Dover hundred for the reasons herein
before set forth.
That the said respondents say that
at the time and place aforesaid they
did publicly, in the presence of such
electors OF the county as thought
proper to be present, ascertain the
state of the election by calculating the
aggregate amount of all the votes for
each Office that had been given in ire
Western election district OF Duck
Greek hundred, in Kenton hundrsd,
in Little Greek hundred, in the Third
election district of East Dover hun
dred, in the Western election district
of North Murderkil hundred, in
Election district No. / OF South
| Murderkill hundred, and in Election
districts Nos. and 2 of Mispillion
hundred, which constitute all the
hundreds and election districts in this
county in which elections were adj
mitted on the assumption in this re-
| turn set forth to have been held for
every person voted for for such Office.
| And they deny that they refused TO
ascertain the state Of the election
throughout the county in the hundreds
| and election districts In which cleo
tions are admitted on such assumption
| to have been held as aforesaid, by cal.
culating the average amount of all the
prta fa5 nIE tl,nE
given in all the said hundreds and
election districts in the county for
every person voted for for such Office.
That said respondents did refuse to
canvass and calculate the number OF
votes pretended to have been given in
| the hundreds and election districts
named in paragraph 13 of said section
q of said petition for the reasons here
inhefore set forth. and for the further
reason that it did not appear to your
RESPONDENTS FROM the reading of the
return that the alleged certificates from
the said election districts were signed
by the officers of election, or by a ma
jority thereof, of said respective dis.
tricts.
That the said respondents say that
| they did make under their hands be-
| fore any adjournment or separation of
| said alleged board of canvass. certifi-
Gates of election certifying what the
said respondents believe to he the Just
and fair result of thu election, which
were signed and delivered to the
proper officers.
The said respondents say that their
action and conduct did not work any
Injury anu detriment to said pe-
t;tioners or any Gbe Of them. or dc.
prive them of any right to which thoy
weretur are fairly entitled.
The said respondents say they did
refuse TO calculate the votes prntedned
10 have been cast for said several oth-
cors in tho hundreds and election dis
tricts referred for the reasons herein.
before stated, anu are therefore unable
to say what the plurality of such pro-
tended votes was.
The said respondents say that what
ever was done as set forth was not
drne by the persons therein namnd as
constituting the alleged board of can-
vaas or n majority of the said alleged
hoard or as authorized by said board
or a snuiority thereof.
The said respondents say that the
said petitioners have uthor adequate
legal remedies Tor the alleged griev-
anres of which they complain in their
petition.
The respondents further return that
the papers purportiug TO be certificates
Of elaction were delivered to the sheriff
OF Kent county and arc no longer sub
1 4