The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-08
WERE ALL FOR j. YOST.
DucEfNGU1M BLECTION COMufs-
sfONEKs FfLE THIIR iNSWLES
In the supreme Court-Thcy Acknowledge
Their Error in Certifying III" 'o'e W
Jacob Yost-Opinion Thursday

Mossrs. VIM. L. Royal, Edgar Alian'
and James u. Brady, counsel Tor J. iost
in his petition for mandamu5 TO compel
The Board Of State Canvasscrs TO award
him the certificate Of election TO Con-
gress from tho Tenth district, were
promptly on hand when the judges OF
the Supreme Court assembled the bench
at IL v o'clock yesterday Moinlng
Mr. Allan asked leave 10 nlc a petition
for mauuamus against the Board OF
Election Commissioners OF buckingham
county. and herewith the answers OF
thieo OF the county commissioners OF the
said county and the clerk OF the county
court. The three members OF the Board
who make response are y. -. Agce, X. Il.
DoWdy. and &. j.. Davis. the latter hav-
ing been one of the judges Of election al
GlcnmOrc precinct, where 80 votes were
counted Tor Jake" AOst. Mr.. Davis
makes response through his attorney
Camm fattcaon, Esq, and admits mo
truth Of The allegations in the petition
for maudamus. as 90 the answers Of the
other Two members or the Board, and
J.. \. Forbes, clerk Of buckingham Coun-
IS.
Mr.. Allan. in answer TO a question from
judge Keith said that the vote cast 1t
Glcnmore precinct had no bearing upon
the petition for mandamus. but was gwen
as comploting the vote Of the county. All
papers I'm the case were then submitted,
and an opinion Will doubtless De handed
down Thursday next. the regular opinion
day.
GLENMORE PRECINCT JUDGE.
c. J.. Davis. the judge Of Glenmore
precinct. in his answer states that he
acted on tho 81 day OF November as one
OF the judges OF election az Glcnmore pre-
cinct. IN Buckingham county. ana that
the nincty-nine votes cast there TOT
Republican congressman were cast for
3D." Yost. am not for Jake fost as
stated in the certificate. Tho respondent
states that he knows that the official
tickets used at Gienmore precinct con-
tained tic name Of a." Yost. and has no
doubt that the name Of Jake lost was
inserted in tie certificate entirely by IN
advertencc and accident.
Tho respondent further says thar IL IS
his belief that the error OF Peter y.
Forhoe i'm certifying that l,2l2 votes were
cast In Buckingham FOR jacob lost' Whfn
he should have stated j." Nost was pure
" n clerical error and made entirely by in
advertence. Also that II. d. y. Omohun-
dro. tie other Judge at Glenmcre. iuIly
concurs with him in the above statement
~ y Arce and Robert DOwdy, In their
answers. admit the allegations OF the pc
fition for mandamus so far as 10 refers
IN tho dosirnation Of J." Iost as the
one printed on the official ballot for
member OF Congress. used November 3.
1886 and also admit that all the poll
books from tho different precincts OF
Hucisingham county certified j. fost
and not Jacob" Yost as having received
the number Of votes which were erro-
ncously certified 10 the Secretary or the
Commonwealth as having been cast at
said election for Jacob Yost.
ALL FOR j." YOST.
The commissioners further say that the
total number Of votes IN the county cast
for j. Nost. except at Glenmore pre-
cinct. was 1113 and that 80 was an error
of the Board Of Election Commi sioners
OF buckingham and Of the county clerk
I'm certifying these votes as having been
cast for Jacob Yost.
I'm conclusion tho respondents cav that
they arc now and will at an times be
ready 10 abide by the order Of the SUI
prcme Court 81 Appeals OF virginia,
which viii enable them or may require
them TO correct the error i'm the election
returns from buckingham county so
committed by them.
No ancwcrs were received from $. r.
Twvman and Luther y. LiehtfoOt. tho
other members Of the buckingham coun-
tv Board but the whole ground IS COW
cred by The above.