The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-04-03
EAST ELECTION CASE
Demurrer and Motion to Quash Indictment
Argued by Counsel for Defense.
THE CASE TAKEN UNDER AMUSEMENT.
Police Conrt Doings-Myatery OF n
Trunk-The LillcnshaS Case-sent
OH to the Grand Jury-Cbarge
Against Crank-A Fish Peddlar's
TroubIes-Clerlx'x ONCE Record.

Those who expected a sensation In the
Corporation Court yesterday were again
disappointed. 1t was the day set for the
trial of l.. b. East. charged with stuff
ing the ballot box at the Second Precinct
Fourth Ward Polls at the last municipal
election. Commemorative Attorney
Baum and both attorneys for the de-
Tense, Senator Boykin and Judge Nicely,
werepromptly on hand, and before court
convened held u consultation fn which
1t was agreed that for the present 1t
should be permitted the defense to argue
| before Judge Hnnckel o. demurrer to the
| indictment and a motion TO quash the
| same. If Judge Hanckel refused to
grant the motion of 'the defendants
| counsel. then Ii was agreed that the
case so over until the next term, which
begins Monday, to which time the court
was adjourned, the jury being disoharg
ed.
Judge Nicely. though present, was I'M
well, and made no argument His col
league spoke at length and in detail. de-
claring that he did not intend to go into
the merits of the case at all, and the
only questions he presented for the
| consideration of the court were technl-
cal
After a few preliminary remarks, he
quoted sections $3.50 and 3S5l OF the
Code, under which latter the indlct
ment was drawn. The former. ne declar-
ed, referred to the actions VI the judge
OF election In the execution of his duty
Section 3,S51 he interpreted as applying
20 the act of putting the ballot into
! the boX-to the voter. and said that II
2 It was Intended to charge ballot-box
!, stuffing. a judge could not be said TO be
, In the performance of his duty while
z committing the offense.
g Among the points he brought forward
to prove that the indictment was defec-
tive. were the following:
l. That there was no direct allegation
in che Indictment that the election was
p legal one 1t should read Lawful
n election then and there held" instead OF
. simply ELECTION then and there held"
It In this connection he went on TO say
8. that all of the elements and the con-
stituents of the offense charged. must he
alleged in the indictment. The Court
had no right TO Infer anything. If the
= court did have 4 right to infer then from
the further wording of the document he
would suppose that l.. b. East was the
only judge OF that election. and was run
ming II himself, for the indictment did
l. not say"a judge Of election" but simply
Judge of election"
.. That the Indictment did not sufii-
y GENTLY set out the sc!enta. 1t must
allege that the accused knew and
well knew" that he was violating the
: law. and with corrupt motives. There
was no allegation of the kind in the doc
ument.
O
scended to particulars or to the species
\ OF the offense The indictment simply
\ charged that Mr.. East on certain
Il day put n number of fraudulent ballots
into the box, but did not state whether
they We're offered by illegal voters or
y, | offered at all. The case depended upon
the circumstances under which they
were offered and deposited. The tndict-
1t ment might have charged that Mr. East
put into the beX ballots of parties not
qualified to'vote, parties not registered.
non-residents, or tina; he prepared a
IS number of ballots himself. or that he
Ia ronsrired with Illegal voters In such a
way as to get their ballots into, the box {;
al Sut 1t set forth none of these things 1t
stated only conclusions, not facts
4. That the indictment must set forth
the statutory offense in the very lam
guage Of the statute. This was not the
case.
e (Mr. Baum. in reply. here stated that
- Il was q COPY of the indictment 81 The
Smither's Precinct case in which the ac-
cused was convicted)
b. That there was no allegatIo that
w he acted "a judge of election The in
dictment simply said that he was at
that time judge of election, but ed not
state that he was acting in that capacity
in tine actual discharge of his duty. AZ
IN that time.
Mr.. Baum asked for time to look IN
~ the law on the points brought uyI by NIr
Boykin. and Judge Hanckel took the
case under advisement
THE POLICE COURT.