Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1897-02-25
ELECTION TRIALS BEeUa.


Era1dSs Case Taken Up.
Almost the entire session OF superior
court Saturday morning wss occupied IN
nsaring argumen. on the motion far {
nsw trial In the case OF Stephen
Aitcheli's administrators IS Abuer u.
woodward. The casa vas tried Oh
Monday and the Jury ander instruetians
frDm the court brought to q verdict fer
thn deIArdpnt. TIE action was on Il
promissory note for s5A0. Walter H.
hayes was granted an extension II
time for Argument ~ a motion TO set
aside the sarrIif'E sale in the case Of
/ Thomas vs., Kane, George Lodge euua
sci 90 the defendant, was unable to ap
pear.
The attendance at the Court Houss
was larger THAI usaBi Tuesday norni1r
at TIC opening Of court, tins crowd being
drawn by anticipation OF hearing the
alsetion cases. 4 disappointment wa5
70 store fur them, however. Hs almost
the entire morning session Of court was
occupied hy Alexander g. Cooper IN
argument 10 quagh rec indictments
gaipst the election o.ilc6rq.
Immediately afteF tho opnniug of
court Attorney .C3anerai White called an
tho election cases NJ Cooper imma.
listeiy made his motioa 10 quRsh ihe
indictments. To ciged numerous
authorities in support OF his motion
and claimed that tia indictments we're
defective In that they did not fully set
forth in what particular the men were
guilty OF altering or making false re-
iurnB Of the election as charged.
Chief Justice Lore handed down the
decision OF the court on the motion for
q new trial In the case Of Stephen
Mitcheli's administrators re-. Abncr H.
Woodward. 10 which cass verdict was
returned In favor Of the defendant last
Teek by jury acting under instrur.
lions Of the court. AT the trial Ben
iamin Nields represented the plaintiff
and j. Harvey Whiteman the defend
ant The court, after reviewing
authorities quoted in the mntiou Tor 4
new trial, decided to set asida the YER
dict and order new trial
William T. Lyman made application
for writ OF possession in tho Ease Of
iRaac Webster SO. SaIie T.. HIawel
Mr.. Lyman represented tho plaintiff.
A. b. Cooper cnarIutlod his aFgI.
ment on tho motion to quash the olec
ton officers iuaictments al u. 30
O'Clock and court then adjourned until
9 30 o'clock.
The argument upnn the motion 10
quaeh tho indictments against tbs elec
ton inspectors was continued.
Tho first poin. which Alexander u.
Cooper had made in opposition to the
indictments was that they did not con
form to the decision Of the court nado
ut the last term, lie declared that they
were substantially and materially tho
| same as the others; the word votes
had been used in place If .'ballots. =
and In tho description OF tha crime, tho
word publish instead OF make. .
The objections he raised were both
technical and substantial. First, Ae
declared that under tho aettlad ruIng
OF law and tho consti tuition the indict
menta did not sufficiently gppfiss the
defendants Of the nature and cAusa Of
the accusation aga!nat them merely
etating conclusion 0f law and not rho
faets upnn which the conclusion was
based. lie hold that the State wag
hound to set forth the faCta. All in /.
| dictments which gIiege an offence mu1t
not only alage the offence but how il
has hceH committed.
Tho second objection raised by A
u. Cooper was thai where the giat OF
( the indictment Is the alteration or pub
1 LEGATION OF written instrument, II
must be got out in tie very words or ne
much as are Included in tho offence
!ie declared further that the word
puhlishing" Us used in section 81 Of
the act OF 1891 for registration 10 Viii
mington only applies TO the certificate
made by the Board of Canvass aud not
tho one returned TO the Board Of Can
TaRa. lie alao declared that section 40
| OF that lay, undor which nine Of tho
indictments were drawn apuIieB only to
muttnrs Of reg!atration ana not Of Gler.
ton. Mr.. Cooper stated that no allo
CATION. OF time md place had been
made in ncgatiring the exception in
section 90 and claimed that all ma
| tnrial ayermentR must be alleged with
| time AMI place.
| At the afternoon session Attorney.
General Robert g. White spoke in TO.
half Of the indictments which hn huil
! to be sufficient. Deputy Attorney
General Potter l.. Cooper, Jf, admitted.
/ 10 addressing tho court. that the Law
1 presented by Alexander I. Conpar, for
the Defendants WIS 90 d law, but II
4 did not apply to the case Under tho
law 1T was nocessGry that tho indct
| menf Ghp% the nature and character of
! the crimo. Ho thereupon took up tho
indictment againt Inspector James L.
Farley and showed whore it followed
! the language of the statute. lie held
that the indictment showed how, whom
and where the false return was pub
! liahed. II was published before tho
/ hoard OF Canvass in the very room in
whlch Mo court sat. Not only that
I hut IT Fat FORTH that the false return
vas made upon tho name OF candidate
running for office, ono William Il.
Finn.
Tho indictment act forth TINT the in
sEector was the custodian OF a ceftiti
cute OF election, that he ma1o an alter
alton IN the number of votes given for
Z certain man. Mr. Cooper held thar
tho indictment was sufficient to inform
tho man OF the crime of which he stond
charged. Tho attorney further hnId
that tho certificate did not have 10
10 SGT forth 10 an Indictm ont be
cause the certificate is described in thu
revised code, and knowledge OF this ID
in the breast Of the court, and 10 sun
posed to be in tho breast Of every man.
Mr.. Cooper said it sesmad to hm
that tho State Ind gone MS fer Us Il
could be expected to 60; nc far as it war
possible to 90 In describing The
offences the State had used the Ian
Euase OF the statute, but had not
stopped thore, for it had told the de-
PENDANT the character and kind oil
changes, and said that the return was
published at tho Board of Canvass i,v