Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1899-04-14
= 49,, - a',-.- .7rs7--.. & .,..-
MCMILLAN ". SADLER.
Just What was Decided by tho Su-
80 - prelnO C0nrt. - I 81: .s,ti :

Wednesdays decision was to have
been on the Mcmillan demurrer TO
Ssdiers answer. What the court
handed q Iwn was memorandum IN
pencil with their reasone left ont.
Tie substance vt this record Of u
decision stripped of its legal phrase
ology is as follows: ...; =.
The first ground of the dem urrer
objected to Sadler's answer for the
reason that said answer stated no
case whatever. This is a grounl that
lawyers put IL all deInurrers, SO We
are told, aud it was over ruled. So
Sadier won that point. Tho next
two objections we're, that Sadler, in
the strict legal sense of the term had
not prOperl, sworn to his answer
THIS point McMinan's attorneys ON
the argument that. though it WIS not
as 1t should be. courts had held tia,
1t was sufficient swearing. II is
stated in the me nor indd Of ule 60 UT
tiat tits ground is owe, ruled and
Sadler wins it. The next ground is
one OF the only two really important
points to be decided III the CASE and
ls known as the Reno vute. 1t was
understood and agreed bv the court
and counsel ON both sides that this
question, whether the Reno vote
should be counted or not should be
determined before the final trial and
the bulk Of the arguments for two
days was devoted to it. The court
says hat "1his gro III | ia over. ruled
for the present" and that it will finally
determine it after hearing the evi.
dence '.. 80. ...
The next objection is The other Wit
al point III the case, called the Store,
county vote. This the court says is
sustained and is victory for McMil-
lan's attorneys.
Then comes point raised by the
answer that 300 votes were illegally
registered by Judge Linn Linn was
sick AID had somebody do the work
for hiln) Mcmillan claims that they
we're regis er i III d lesl man ner.
This the court says is over-ruleI for
the present.
The next objections are that Sadler
should have giveI the ma mss of tile
Voters in Churchill, Douglass and Ly
Oh who he claims were not entitled to
vote on account of .resldenry.
uOn.citIzenship. etc. Thus the court
says is not necessary and the punt Is
Over-Iu ed.
Next, Sadler claimed th;.t a large
number Of ballots should be Shrosn
out III many and various precincts
because of the irreg ularities, such as
the Judge falling "a sign tile return,
falling t" use aud return check lists,
officials failing to post registry no.
uces and notices Of election, t:ilure to
add uU and certify tally sheets, and
numerous other obi 'cvion set up I'D
two or three specilica Ions These
McMillan's attorneys held did not
prevent fair election, and tile court
sustained all objections to these ir.
reGularities.
Finally Sadler's attorneys insisted
that out in Cortez the secrecy OF the
ballot was violate because the booths
wee not 30 pIacel. sore IN ID aud
guarded as the law required. The
court Says IN the neDor .nLa that tile
point is not we'll taken and McMIllan's
ground OF demurrer is u tanned.
That is what was passed apon and
1over.ruled for the present" as nearly
tile News can get ut it. McMrIIan's
attorneys yesterday filed petition
requesting resubuiissi"n Of The
@"eno" points as they are familiarly
known and asking decision of the
law iDvolved.-Carson News.