Eureka weekly sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1887-1902, 1899-06-17

From the Carson News Of June 81
FOURTH DAY.


FOURTH DAY.
Thursdsy morning the ballots from
Austiu, precinct No. 2. Lander county,
over which there was considerable con-
troversy because the packet containing
chem had broken seal on IL. were intro
duced In testimony as part Of the reiasors
case. The usual objections were taken by
both sides and thus ell the ballots from
Lander county have been admitted and
counted.
The Court asked 70 examine the poll
lists Of Gslena precinct. They were re-
spectfully submitted. and then j. II.
Hoegh, County CLERK Of Eureka county.
WAS called.
In keeping with the request made by
Deputy County Clerk Mslloy that his
mileage be paid him before he should
proceed to testify in the case. Mr.. Hoegh
made similar demand from McMillsn's
attorneys. His statement aroused another
vigorous discussion among the respective
attorneys, and IL was brought out in the
course Of the argument thss Ssdler's
attorneys especially were very particular
In their objections toward Mr.. Hoegh's
testimony.
II was suggested by counsel for Nc
MILAN that as Mr.. Hoegh had been called
10 testify in their behalf il was question
able as to whether Ssdler's attorneys had
any power 70 appear and argue in the
witness behalf.
AT any rate the suggestion proved inter-
esting. and Mr.. Wren In explanation Of
his attitude finally explained that he
deemed IL his duty. considering that Mr..
Hoegh had been an intimate, lifelong
friend OF his, 70 see that justice WAS
accorded him.
The County Clerk was sworn on his
voir dire TO testify as 10 the agreements
made between himself and attorney Coffin
in relation TO his testimony in that case.
Mr.. Hoegh admitted that 1t was possible
that he had been approached by sadler
and certain statutes pointed out to him
whereby il he so choose he could refuse to
testify In the case until his mileage was
paid.
Mr.. Hoegh testified that he had received
considerable money from Mr.. Coffin TO
deiray his expenses In the case. and the
question Of mileage was finally submitted
to the Court. II was decided that while q
witness had the privilege under the statute
10 demand both his mileage and expenses,
the Court had no power TO compel him to
testify II sufficient money had been pro-
vided 70 deirsy his mileage only. II was
found upon examination that Mr.. Hoeeh
had received enough money 70 actually
pay bis mileage, irrespective Of what other
expenses might amount to.
Upon this ruling Of the Court he pro.
essdsd to testify and produced the ballots
from Eureka county. During the morning
session the ballots from Eureka precinct
were counted with The usual objections
from both sides.
Sadlsr's attorneys asked leave 70 intro
dnee, ont Of order. the ballots from Cortez
and Reese River precincts in Lander
county. which the relstor had not intro.
duced In his behalf yesterday. Under
stipulation Of counsel this testimony was
considered relevant although neither side
had alleged any defects or irregularities
from these respective precincts. Under
this stipulation IL will be considered per-
tinent for counsel for either side to intro
duce In evidence the ballots Of any precinct
In any county. whether they be alleged In
the respective complaints and answers or
not.
During the afternoon session the ballots
objected 10 in the contest Of Gregovich vs..
Powell. In Eureka county were counted
They we're presented by County Clerk
hoeeh 10 q separate packet, carefully
sealed. As Eureka county gave Sadler q
large plurality. there were more opportun.
isies for objections by McMiiisn's at.
sorneys than for the respondents. These
ballots we're the most badly identified by
distinguishing marks and erasures than
any yet offered. McMillAn's attorneys
objected to fity-three Of them and Sadler's
attorneys 70 twenty-five. The respond don't
introduced, by consent. a few precincts
from Lincoln county, which excused the
Clerk OF that county from further
attendance.
One Of these precincts gave one vote for
Mcmillan and none for Sadler. This
solitary ballot remained uumolested by
objection.
FIFTH DAY.
In The report Of Mr.. Goodrlchs testi-
mony II was made TO appear the other day
that the County Commissioners Of Lin
coin county had failed to name certain
county officers for certain precincts In
shas county. II 10 evident that the County
commissioners have no power to nominate
candidates for office.
Upon the convening OF court this morn
Ing Mr.. Hossh, County olerk Of Eureka