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

introduce In testimony the poll books and
register lists Of Mineral Hill precincs.
Mr.. Hoegh testified that A. W. Clayton
and E. Carlett were both residents oi
Pine Station and had been for q number
OF years.
The poll books showed that both voted
at Mineral Hill.
He was also asked TO produce the poll
books and registry lists from Pine Station
precinct but by some oversight or other
they had become misplaced and could not
be introduced.
After Mr.. Hoegh was excused j. II.
Miller, County Clerk OF Esmeralda county.
was sworn. Other than the objections
interposed by Sadler's attorneys toward
she admissibility Of the ballots from that
county there was none OF the wrangling
over milesges and expenses which had
characterized the presence Of some OF the
other Witnesses.
Mr.. Miller had protected his ballots with
all due care and presented them in court
properly sealed In packages TO the evident
satisfaction Of all concerned. The first
precinct examined was Douglas. This
precinct gave decided majority for Sad
Ter and McMillan's attorneys found several
ballots TO which they objected ON the
ground Of distinguishing marks, erssures,
etc.
The ballots from Silver Peak, Candel-
aria and Tule Canyon precincts were all
introduced In evidence and examined by
the respective counsel. Contrary to the
general run OF things not one objection
was made by either side TO the ballots
from the last named precinct. Mr..
Miller was then excused from any further
testimony on behalf OF the relator. Nc
MILAN. but Sadler's attorneys intimated
that they desired him for the introduction
OF ballots from other precincts In Esme-
ralda county NOT alleged in relator's COM
plant.
James T. Dunn, County Clerk Of Hum.
boldt county was the next witness called.
Mr.. Dunn is evidently the youngest
County Clerk who has yet been sworn 70
testify in the case. His ballots were
encased in large dry goods box, carefully
roped and sealed and presented in good
shape for examination. No time was
wasted In preliminary argument and Love-
lock precinct was the first voting district
in Humboldt county TO be inquired into.
There had been Q contest in Lsvelock and
several ballots were objected 70 which Mr..
Dunn had enclosed In . separate package.
The remaining ballots were first submitted
for examination. the counting OF which
occupied the remainder Of the morning
session. AS these ballots had been care
fully examined In the case referred TO
there were fewer objections In proportion
than to any other precincts yet examined.
The vote for Governor in Lovelook, SO far
as the two contestants are concerned, was
unusually close. MCMILLAN having received
q small majority.
Az the afternoon session the precinct Of
Lovelocks WAS completed. Quite . num-
ber Of bad ballots were found. MCMILLAN
received "a votes In this precinct and
Sadler II. but the defective ballots will
leave IL about stand of.
Kings River was then offered and the
ballots showed up clean. Pueblo precinct
produced 9 unique ballot. Two Of the
crosses showed through the ballot. leaving
a distinct brown cross on the back. The
REALTORS attorneys objected on the ground
that said brown crosses not only we're
distinguishing marks. but destroyed the
secrecy OF the ballot. showing In two
Instances for whom the voter cast his
ballot.
Two other sadler ballots showed bad
erssurss In squares where crosses should
be.
Kennedy, where relator's attorneys
Allege . donny.broo fair took place on
election day. unsarthsd seven sadlsr
ballots which relator objected to. These
objections were on account OF ugly crosses
huu Nlcioub ckosutoe.
In Rebel Greek only four voted, but
MoMillan's attorneys found SAdler ballot
worthy Of objection.
The WinnemuocA ballots were then pre-.
sented. McMillsn's attorneys took IS OBJ
jections and Sadler's attorneys 16. A
peculiar feature Of the Humboldt county
ballots is that the disputed ballots In this
county are in evidence In the Eevesge vs..
Gilbert, County Treasurer contest. before
the District Judge aud are objected 10 In
the present case. with liklihood that the
Supreme Cour. will pass upon the same
before the District Judge does.
In Dun Glen. precinct where no NO
MILAN ballots were returned. relator's
attorneys objected to two dis6gured Sadler
ballots. and in Mill City. 9 similar pre-
cinc', the relasor excepted to three badly
erased and distinguished ballots.
Unionville was next lot Of tickets offered.
On three of them voters endeavored to
vote for more than one candidate for the