The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-01-08
The Contest for Auditor
Between Deane and
Broderick.
Nothing Wrong Disclosed in the
First Day of the Recount
Proceedings.
Peculiar Marks Interpreted by Judge
Trout According to the Vot-
er'S Intention.

There was crowd of interested politi-
clans in Judge Troutt's department of the
Superior Court yesterday morning when
the contest OF William a. Deane against
William Broderick for the Office of City
Auditor was called for trial.
Mr.. Deane smiled as he faced Mr.. Brod-
erick in the legal arena, and there was a
general sentiment among the crowd that
MAY the best man win" In this case
the best man will be the one with the
greatest number of votes.
Attorney Carrot McEnerney, represent
ing Mr.. Broderick, objected to the open
ing of the ballots on the usual technical
grounds that there was nothing to show
that the ballots produced were the original
ballots, and that there is nothing on the
face of the returns nor in the allegations
of the complaint filed by Mr.. Deane to
warrant the court in ordering recount of
the votes.
Attorney William H. Schroeder, speak
ing for Mr.. Deane, drew attention 10 the
provisions of the code, which allow any
candidate an opportunity to have the title
of his opponent investigated by court of
competent jurisdiction, and Judge Trout
directed Registrar Hinton 10 produce a
package of ballots, with which command
The Registrar complied, but he asked
to be excused from opening il.
The court appointed D. L. Conkling,
caller; William r. Joost, strlnger; Joseph
Mcdonald, clerk; James T. Leary, clerk
H. w. Walter, official reporter.
Judge Trout look the clerks shears and
severed the red tape that had been placed
around the envelope containing the
ballots cast in the First Precinct of the
Forty-ffth Assembly District, broke the
seals and directed Caller Conkling to pro-
coed.
In less than five minutes a conten ton
arose over the counting OF vote where
. the cross mark had been carelessly placed
by the e.ector. 1t seemed to be almost
equally divided between Broderick and
Chapman, being IN fact on tie line divid-
ing those TWO names. 1t was not printed
squarely on the paper. One arm OF the
invaded the square opposite Broderick's
name, while the other part of the mark
was clearly in the field of the square
opposite Chapman's name, so a brief
argument ensusd.
Mr.. Schooler-We object to the ballot on the
ground that IL is impossible TO determine from
the face of the ballot whether the elector de-
sired to vote for Broderick or Chapman.
Mr.. MeEnerney-We contend that it ought
to be counted for Mr.. Broderck.
Judge Trout latter inspecting the ballot)-
II SEEMS ~ l4S tAdt Tue greater part OF Inc
cross or mark is in the square opposite Brod-
ericks name, though must say that it is a
doubtful case. / desire 10 suggest in some of
these disputed cases il may be necessary to
reserve decision in order 10 give time for full
examination and consideration. However. in
this instance / shall oYerrule Mr. Schooler's
objection and the vote will be counted for
Frederick.
Exception was noted by Deane's attor-
ney, and the ballot was marked Dis
puted ballot No. l.
Il was only a few minutes before an
other dispute arose because some one put
two marks on the balIot-one after Chap
man and one after Deane. Mr.. McEnerney
objected 10 the ballot while Mr.. Schooler
resisted the objection.
Judge Trout decided that the ballot
could not be counted, and II was marked
mo. 2" OH The list of disputed ballots.
There was yet another ballot disputed
by Mr.. McEnerney on the ground that 1t
was not clearly intended for Deane, but
the court oyerruled the objection. At
close of the count of The precinct it APP
peared that Deane had II votes and Brode-
rick Y, gain of one vote for Deane.
In the succeeding precincts there was
no material change. The record TOR the
day was as follows: First Precinct, Deane
gained one; Second, no change; Third,