Evening journal., 1896-11-25
ILLEGALITY CON Intended
Hon. John B. Pennington
Raises a New Point.
HE INSPECTORS NOT ELECTIVE

COURTS ATTENTION CALLED To
AN OMISSION IN THE NEW
ELECTION LAw-MOTIoN TO
QUAsH THE WRIT or MANDA-
MUS.
DOVER, Nov. 2j.-The Democratic
attorneys sprung a surprise on the Re
publicans yesterday, when they APP
peared in court and instead of giving
reasons why the vote had not been
canyassed on Monday, moved that the
alternative writ of mandamus issued
by the court be quashed. The Repub-
lieans resisted this contention, but the
whole day was spent in argument on
the motion to quash. Shortly before
the court adjourned. at o'clock. the
/ chiet Justice announced that a decis-
| ION would be rendered to-day at
! O'Clock on whether the writ should be
| quashed.
me Democrats also made the charge
that none Of the inspectors of election
since a change in the law of 1891 had
been legally elected. owing to a defect
IN the law. The Democrats made q
strong point in their contention that
the sheriff had not been made a party
to the suit. The Republicans held that
the snerin had accepted service and
was therefore in the suit.
After preliminary proceedings. ex-
Congressman Pennington set the ball
rolling for the Democratic respond
ents. He declared that the alterna-
tive writ did not follow the petition
for the reason that a new party. the
sheriff, had been added to the suit. The
sheriff was not legally a party to the
suit If he is in the suit he had no
right to make service.
EX-Congressman John B. Penning-
ton gave the following reason in sup
port of this motion to quash:
Il. For that the writ of mandamus
was not directed to the proper per-
sons in that il was directed to the per-
sons alleged to be inspectors of the
several hundreds and election dis
tricts of Kent county and the sheriff Of
Kent county, whereas, it should have
been to the sheriff and other alleged
members of the alleged Board of Can
vass, commanding it as such board to
reconvene and perform the mandates
Of said writ
"2. For that the said alternative
writ of mandamus does not follow the
petition and the order Of the court. in
that a new party is made, to wit: Sam
uel l.. Shaw, sheriff of Kent county. is
joined as a correspondent or defendant
without any authority therefor.
80. For that it docs not appearfrom
the petition and writ Of mandamus
that the certificates of election which
were produced by the sheriff and the
inspectors of the several hundreds
and election districts throughout the
county, sitting as an alleged Board OF
Canvass on Thursday, the 9Th day OF
November A. D., 1896, as stated in said
petition and writ of mandamus. We're
signed and properly authenticated by
the inspector and judges of the re-
spective hundreds or election districts
or by a majority thereof; nor that the
said certificate had the votes received
by each and every candidate voted for
set out in words at length
a. For that the averment, that
certificate of election for each hundred
or election district was presented to
the sheriff at the session of the alleged
Board of Canvass did not set forth
with sufficient particularly the papers
purporting to be certificates of election
in the several hundreds and election
districts. to show that they We're such
certificates from which the alleged
Board of Canvass was bound to ascer-
tain and to calculate the state of the
election throughout the county.
"5 For that it is alleged that your
respondents had been legally elected
or appointed inspectors of election for
! Kent county; whereas, they could net
/ have been so elected because there is
no law of this state authorizing the
! election of inspectors, and that if ap-
pointed, it should have been set forth
clearly and distinctly when and by
whom they were respectively ap-
pointed.
"6. For that George H. Murray is
made a party relatOr when he does moi
appear that he signed the petition for
the rule or writ of mandamus; or has
ever been made party relator in any
proper manner.
a. For that the petition and writ
of mandamus set forth and show that
there was an election held in West Do
yer hundred on November 3, 1896, but
that it does not show that the relators
have resorted to the proper remedy 10
. have the result of said election pre-
Il hCnlCu 10 lut odlu hlltBtA. DDdlM Ol
Canvass so that it could calculate and
Z ascertain the state of the election in
Z that hundred of said county.
r IS. For that it appears by the petit
/ tion and said writ of mandamus that
! the papers purporting to be certificates
of election were delivered 10 the sheriff
2 of Kent county, and that being so de-
livered are no longer subject to the
{ control of your respondents, and that
, said certificates being thus out of the
possession of your respondents, and nc
= order being made in the writ Of man.
| damus. commanding the sheriff to de-
. liver them to your respondents, they
could have no certificates from which
to ascertain the state of the election
throughout the county and issue Ger.
I tncates of election as required by law
a and the mandate of said writ in thai
l behalf"
d II. II. Ward, for the Republicans
I contended that the only statute which
4 appears to relate to this matter is thu
[ one providing that the coroner shal