Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1899-08-10
DECISION Is GIVEN.
The Bloomington Election Decided
bu Judue GI6mentS0n TO be
a Tie-NGW Election
SOME ILLEGAL VOTES CAST
The Judge Rendered filS Decision Last
SATURDAY..

Judge Clementson last Saturda'
read his eagerly looked for decision il
the Bloomington election case-tech
nically the case Of the State of Wis
consin ex. rel. Oscar Knapp, Tuce
Hammond and John Lord. Plaintiff.
VS. Henry Roberts, John Harris anC
Albert Schreiner, defendants, to Gus
the latter and seat the former al
supervisors of the town of Blooming
ton.
At the election LOG votes were cas-
of which the Knapp ticket called thu
Caucus ticket received 70 votes anc
the other called the Town ticket
received 81 votes.
BY the decision three votes for the
| Clown" ticket, those of Willard, Brad.
ley and Pearson, and one vote for the
Caucus ticket, that Of John Small,
were thrown out leaving the vote q
tie-7S to rs, A new election is or
dered.
The vote Willard was illegal because
he had not resided in the village for
ten days Immediately preceding the
election. Small was not legal voter
because he voted last fall in Iowa
Bradley was held to have been in the
town of Bloomington for temporary
purposes only and hence not a quail
fled voter at the town election. Con-
corning this vote the judge ailirmS
1T is beyond doubt that Bradley was
not qualified voter of Bloomington
when he was living with
Mr.. Sutton in Wyalusing
in February last at the time Morrissey
hired him. When he went to work
for Edwards in Bloomington it was
his intention to leave him and go to
Glen Haven and work for Morrissey
as soon as spring farm work began.
While he was at Edwards he was
there for temporary purpose, and
this being so he acquired no residence
in Bloomington and could not vote
there
The vote of Pearson was re-
lected because it appeared from the
evidence that his vote was cast for the
Town" ticket contrary to his wishes
and intention through the contriyanec
and fraud of one Fred Mason who was
an active worker for the "Townn or
'anti-railroadn ticket.
Following are extracts from the de-
cision;
The remaining question to be de-
cided and upon which this case hing
es is, Should Parsons vote be de-
Quoted from the defendants and adj
ded to the vote Of the plaintiffs? This
is difficult question to decide both
as to the facts and the law, for the
testimony is conflicting and | have
myself found in the law books no sim
liar case, and apparently counsel on
neither side has, for no judicial de-
cision in case like this has been cit
ed to me.
The testimony as to the voting Of
VIM. Pearson was conflicting AT
the argument at the trial, having the
testimony of the witnesses and their
manner of testifying freshly in mind,
minated that the testimony given
upon this matter showed that fraud
had been practiced upon Pearson and
that he had been made to vote a Town
ticket thinking it to be a Caucus tick
ct. expressed some doubt whether
under the law some of this testimony
had been properly received. Investi-
CATION has convinced me that it was,
and that it was is fairly and properly
conceded in the written argument of
the learned attorneys for the defend
ants. | have had the testimony writ
ten out by the reporter and have care
fully read it. My first impression IS
confirmed, and find the facts bearing
upon this vote to be as follows: Will
liam Pearson is a young man who can
neither read n0r'write and is not up
to the usual standard of Intelligence
He attended the caucus the Saturday
before the election and voted for the
nominees of the Caucus ticket On
election day Pearson got from Oscar
Knapp, who was on that ticket as a
candidate for the office of supervisor,
a Caucus ticket and started to the
polling place to vote it with the tick
ct folded in his hand On the side
walk at the foot of the stairs leading
to the hall where the election was be-
ing held Fred Mason met him. Mason
was working for the town ticket.
Pearson supposed he was a railroad
man" that is, man who favored the
Caucus ticket. Mason asked Pearson
to let him see his ballot and Pearson
handed it to him Mason looked al
it, folded it up again, put the hand in
which he held it in his pocket and
presently withdrew the same hand
with folded ticket in it and handed
the ticket to Pearson who. supposing
it to be the same ticket that be had
handed to Mason, Immediately went
up stairs TO the polling place and vot-
ed it expecting and intending that he
was voting the Caucus ticket That
the ticket Mason handed to Pearson
was not the ticket that he had recciv.
ed from Pearson but was aTown tick
ct and that Mason slyly, Intentionally
and fraudulently changed Pearson.
ticket for Town ticket for the fraud
ulent purpose of having Pearson vot,
that ticket contrary to his intention
and that Mason accomplished thi:
purpose is clearly manifest from al
of the circumstances and from hi,
statements to Mr.. Lord and Mr. Tubb.
at the polling place after Pearson had
voted but while the election was be
} ing held.
Can the intention of Pearson to vott
for the plaintiffs be given effect to by
the court and his vote added to tn,
i number they received In the alb
; scnce of any decision by court in I
] similar case have found difficulty il
9 arriving at conclusion upon thi
; point. In cases where votes are oh
, tanned by bribery the general rule i
to strike them from the count but no
to add them to the votes of the othe