Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1896-12-17
DISMISSAL ASKED
In the Nierling-Halstead EIec-
ton Contest for Alleged
Material Defects.
Alleged Grounds for Claiming
Treasurer-Eiect Hal.
stoad's Office.
Halstead's Answer In the Suit.
Hearing Set For De-
Cember, 20.

The N,erling- Halstead election contest
case was called in district court Monday
morning to argue motion for its dis
missal. Attorney M. Conklin, who
appeared for Treasurer.e]ect Halstead.
moved dismissal for the reason that
the plaintiff failed to file surety for costs
% provided by the code of the state;
also for the reason that notice Of con-
test was not served within twenty days
after the canvass OF the votes of the
election as required by law.
Section $40 OF the code states that
"any person bringing contest under
the provision of " that ''article must be-
fore bringing the same furnish good and
sufficient surety for costs as provided by
the code of civil procedure. and the obliga-
tion of such surety shall be complete by
simply indorsing the notice of contest as
surety for COSTS"
Permission to file bond for surety OF
costs was granted Monday by Judge
Rose, to correct the defect in the con-
test proceedings of J. j. Nierllng against
Treasurer. A. NJ. Halstead, and the
case will be tried OF It's merits the day
following Christmas. Notice OF trial on
that date was served Tuesday.
The CLAIM of Mr.. Nierling to the seat
OF Mr.. Halstead, who has majority OF
SO votes as found by the county canvass
ing board, is, in short, that be received
more votes than did MIR. Halstead inde-
pendent, or Mr.. Hslstead, democrat. He
states IN his notice Of contest that there
were 1903 votes cast for the office OF
treasurer OF which, number he received
622, Mr.. Halstead, independent, 55S. and
Mr.. Halstead, democrat, l23; that upon
the face Of the returns he received q
plurality OF "a votes. Nov. 20, claiming
the election, he demanded OF Auditor
Vennum that certificate OF election be
issued to him (which demand the said
auditor refused and on the 2lst day OF
November wronRfully and without wa--
rant Of law issued said certificate OF
election to the contestee, A. M. Hal
stead"
He further alleges that 10 the pre-.
cincts OF Montpelier. Pingree and Yps'-
lanti, where hr Halstead received vote
Of y, Is and 26 respectively, no returns
were made to the county canvassing
board. Also that there we're cast and
counted for Mr.. Halstead great num-
ber OF votes that were illegal and void
because there we're certain signs and
distinguishing marks upon them where
by they could be identified as the bal
lots cast by certain voters and for the
further reason that the persons voting
the same had voted,or attempted to vote,
for each OF two candidates for this Office,
and that the intention Of the voter could
not be gathered from said vote. OF such
votes be claims that Mr.. Halstead re-
ceived two IN the First ward, ten in the
Second ward and fifteen in the Third
ward Of the city, and in Spiritwood lake,
two; Cvrinne and Buchanan. five each.
Spiritwood station, Montepelire, Pin
gree, EdmunGs and Eldr1dg three each;
Durham, 10; Windsor, 2; Yps,lanti, Sand
Woodbury., Melvin, Iowa and Stirton, l
each. And IN nine other preclpcts Of
the county number unknown to him.
In recount, without these alleged illeg-
al votes,he claims he would have major
ity OF Is. He also claims that in Mount
Pleasant precinct there was one vote cast
. .er him that was not counted, and 10 the
Third ward of the city there we're two,be-
side number in the county at large to
hlm unknown. On full and legal can
vass of the ballots he makes the claim
that he would have majority OF 20 or
more votes, ''sbove all other candidates"
In bis answer Treasurer-elect Halstead
states, without waving his right to have
the contest dismissed for the reason OF
the failure of the plaintiff TO file surety
for the coats before commencing
the contest aud in order that the answer
shall not bs so construed, alleges as bis
defense that the defendant did not be-
fore the beginning OF this suit furnish
surety for costs az the code states. This
point hes been decided. The votes in
the precincts Of Montpelier, PinRree and
Ypsilanti were lawfully cast and included
10 tho returns az canvsssed by the county
election board and be asserts it would
have been unlawful and unjust il the
county bosrd Of canvassers had excluded
from their abstract tho votes cast in
these three precincts BY reason Of any
intUrmality or ,rregularity OF the oertifi-