The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-05-20
CITY MUST PAY A
BIG BILL OF COSTS
Has to Stand the Expense Of the
Twelfth Ward Contest.
JUDGE F. W. GUNSTER so DEcREED
Opinion Was Handed Down Yester.
day AftcrnOOn..This Means That
Taxpayers Will Pay About $4,000
for Luxury Of a Ward Fight Ven.
tilated in Court. The Opinion.

The city of Scranton will have to
foot the bill for the election contest
against Councilman Morgan Sweeney
and James j. Manley, of the Twelfth
ward. Judge Gunster handed down an
opinion and an order to that effect yes
terday afternoon. Just what the
amount OF expense is, will be deter
mined later, but an approximate esti-
mate Of 1t places it at not less than
$4,000. Attorneys w. Gaylord Thomas
and w. w. Baylor, who acted as COM
missioners in the contest. and Attor-
ney NJ. A. MCKINLEY, who took steno-
graphic notes of the evidence, have
presented their bills, which amount 10
about s1,2OO.
When Judge Archibald, on February
3 last, handed down the decree decid-
ing that Messrs. Sweeney and Manley
had not received as many illegal votes
as to appreciably reduce the majoritles
shown on the face of the returns, he
granted rule to show cause why the
contestants should not pay the costs.
This rule was argued at the last term
of argument court. Attorney John X.
Edwards appeared in the interest of
Henry w. Coyle and John j. Kearney,
the contestants. and City Solicitor j.
II. Torrey appeared for the city.
The court on Jan. 13 last made an
order approving of the bill Of costs, and
| yesterday Judge Gunster ordered that
approval. The opinion placing the
costs on the city Is as follows:
This rule (meaning the one In the
Manley case) and a similar one in the
matter Of the contested election of Nor
| gan Sweeney involve practically the
same question and were heard together.
The question upon which their dispo-
sitiOn depends is whether or not the
complaints were without probable
cause. AS generally defined, probable
cause Is reasonable ground OF sus-
picion, supported by circumstances
sufficient to warrant an ordinarily pru-
dent man In believing the charge or
complaint. 1t appears that the major-
ity returned for Mr.. Manley was Is
and that the majority returned for Mr..
Sweeney was 6. On the trial the conf
plainants proved that thirty-two Of
the votes cast and counted for these
! two candidates were illegal.
PRIMA FACIE CASE.
This made out for them prima
| facie case in the contest and II IL con-
tended that that of itself Is probable
| COust IL may uS Gil ldtt
but ! am not prepared TO say that 1t is
conclusive, or to hold as matter Of
law that it Is probable cause Other
circumstances may throw light on the
question of probable cause. Then, al
ter complainants have made out a
prima facie case, the respondent might
easily overcome IL by showing large
number of illegal votes for his oppon-
ent.
There are in this case other facts
which throws light ION the question.
There il evidence that complainants
had information that there had been
miacount Of the ballots. When the
returns were computed In open court
two affidavits We're filed and the court
was requested to send for the ballot
box and recount the ballots. During
the progress of the contest 1t was found
that ii would be necessary to open the
ballot boxes. Unfortunately the bal
lots were unintentionally destroyed be-
fore they We're inspected or counted by
the court.
Under the peculiar circumstances OF
this case we cannot say that the COM
plant was without probable cause, and
are therefore obliged to direct the city
to pay the costs. And now, May 10
1896. the rule is discharged and it Is
ordered. adjudged and decreed that the
city of Scranton pay all the costs.