The record-union., 1899-12-23
BRADLEY FILES A CONTEST.
OBJECTS TO CLARK BEING
IS SEATED AS MAYOR.
Claims That His Election Expenses
s Far Exceeded His
Statement. ss


Yesterday morning a contest was hled
In the SUPERIOR Court of this county
against the seating of Mayor-elect
George II. Clark on the ground OF his
having filed false statement of his
election expenses under the purity OF
election law.
The text of the complaint, which
fully explains all the allegations and
charges, is as follows:
In the Superior Court, County of Sac
ramento, State of alifornia-William
H. Bradley, contestant, VS.. George H.
4 Clark, defendant.
8 Now comes the contestant above
named, and contesting the right of de-
: PENDANT, George H. Clark, to the office
Of Mayor of the city of Sacramento,
State of California, for cause of such
contest alleges and states:
That the city of Sacramento is duly
incorporated as a city under the laws
of the State of California, and that one
of the offices provided by law to be ex-
ercised in said city is that of Mayor
of said city. That the term of office of
any person elected to said office of
hdyoi VI Sdlu lily Is lWO years IlOlIl
and after the first Monday after the
first day of January next succeeding
his election, and the salary of such
Mayor is three thousand dollars per an
mum during said term.
That the name of the person making
this contest is William H. Bradley, and
that said contestant is an elector of
the said city of Sacramento, county OF
Sacramento, State of California
That the name of the person whose
right to said office is contested is George
H. Clark
That the office, respecting the right to
which this contest is made, is that of
Mayor of the city of Sacramento, State
of California.
That on the 18th day. of November,
1899, an election was duly held in said
city of Sacramento, for the purpose Of
electing Mayor of said city, together
with other officers. That defendant,
George H. Clark, was a candidate for
the office of Mayor of said city at said
election, and was voted for thereat.
That the returns from the various pre-
cincts in said city We're duly returned
and filed in the office of the Board of
Trustees of said city and on the 18th
day of November, 1899, the said Board
of City Trustees duly met and canvass
ed said returns, and thereupon declared
that the defendant, George H. Clark,
was elected to the office of Mayor of
said city of Sacramento. That on the
- day of November, 1899 a certifi-
cate of such election of defendant was
issued to him by the City Clerk of Sac
ramento City.
That on the 21st day of November.
1893, said George H. Clark made and
filed with the County Clerk of the
county of Sacramento, State of Cali
1ornia. a paper purporting to be an
1temized statement of moneys received
and expended by him as a candidate for
said office of Mayor of said city, a true
copy of which said statement. is here
to annexed, marked Exhibit A." and
made part hereof
That said George H. Clark made and
attached to said statement an affidavit.
and filed the same with said statement
IN the office of the said County Clerk of
sacramento County, a copy of which
said affidavit is hereto annexed. mark
ed Exhibit E, and made part here
Of That no other or different state
ment or affidavit relating to the expend-
ltures by or on behalf of the defendant
as such candidate for Mayor has been
filed.
: That the particular grounds of this
contest are as follows:
(First)
That said defendant did not file a s
1temzed statement of moneys received
and expended in aid of his election as
required by law. in this:
First-That the said purported state
ment filed by defendant does not show
In detail or otherwise all or any of the
moneys contributed by others for his
use, directly or indirectly, in aid of his
election 8
q Second-That said purported state
ment does not show the names of all
of the persons to whom moneys were
paid, to-wit: the item of SD 65 for sun
dries and incidentals set forth in said
statement. nor the purposes for which
said sum was expended "a
(Second.)
That said purported statement of
moneys received and expended made
and filed by defendant, is willfully false
in the following particulars:
First-That while defendant was a
"A. p. Booth, with the knowledge and
consent of defendant hired from con-
testant two hacks for the purpose of
conveying voters to the pohs, and there
by aiding in the election of defendant
TO said office of Mayor, and said A. p
Booth, with the knowledge and consent
of defendant paid contestant the sum
of so for the use and hire of said
hacks, which said sum of $40 is not
specified or, set forth in said state
ment.
Second-That while defendant was a
candidate for said office, and for the
purpose of conveying voters to the
polls and aiding in his election, defend
ant hired other hacks than those of
contestant, and paid therefor, as con-
testant is informed and believes a sum
exceeding two hundred dollars. That
no part of said sum is set forth in said
statement. That the persons to whom
said payments We're made for the hire