The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-04-08
MACHINERY IS STOPPED.
clerk at TAO ana were in the hands of
the sheriff at 1850
The papers were as follows:
SHERIFF SERVES PAPERS.

the sheriff at 1850
The papers were as follows:
SHERIFF SERVES PAPERS
The original writ in the mandamus
suit OF Albert Parker against J w +.
Hughes and the city council and the
city clerk was placed in the hands OF
Sheriff Cook shortly before o'clock this
morning and by noon service had been
made on all parties
The alternative writ Of mandamus sets
forth in substance the same points as the
affidavit in the case and in addition says:
Now. therefore, these are to command
you that upon receipt of this writ you
do each and all repair to the council
chamber Of the city Of Topeka and be-
ing there assembled, do thereupOn pro-
ceed to correctly canvass said vote cast
at said election by giving the said Albert
Parker and the said j. w r. Hughes re-
spectively the votes given them accord
ing to certificates of the judges and the
clerks Of the said first precinct of the
Second ward and of the said third pre-
cinct of the Third ward and that you
cause your said canvass as completed to
be duly recorded and cause a certificate
of election to be issued thereon to the
said Albert Parker or that you show
cause before the district court of Shaw
nee county, Kansas. on the 1lth day OF
April, 1901 at two o'clock p. m. why you
have not done as herein commanded and
have you then and there this writ
Not a Recount
According to the attorneys for Mr..
Parker the proceedings which were filed
this morning viii not cause a recount OF
the ballots The ballots will only be re-
counted when ordered by the court and
there has been nothing in The proceed
ings SO far that would cause a recount
This is the opinion of the attorneys OF
both sides
F. p Lindsay who was appointed po-
lice judge by Mr.. Hughes before papers
We're served upon him this morning, says
that he has qualified and is ready to
take the Office.
Taxt Of Nandamns Petition
The mandamus affidavit shows Albert
Parker to be the plaintiff and the old
council are named, with the city clerk,
to be the defendants
The affidavit is sworn to by Albert
Parker and explains that the council met
and seated Hughes and then says:
That on the face of the returns as
duly certified by the judges and clerks
Of said election returned from all the pre-
cincis of said city, affiant was elected
to the said office Of mayor by a majority
of eleven votes over said Hughes; but
said six councilmen, including said
Hughes, refused to abide or be bound by
the duly signed certificates of said
judges and clerks in two precincts. to-
wit: the first precinct OF the Second
ward and the third precinct of the Third
ward and assumed the right to ignore
said certificates and to decide for them
selves from certain tally sheets 1nclosed
with said returns the number OF said
votes cast for affiant and the number
cast for said Hughes and to be entirely
controlled by said tally sheets, and so
proceeded, disregarded the said certih-
Gates Of said judges and clerks Of said
first precinct of the Second ward. which
certified that aftiant had received 342
votes and said Hughes 127 votes and
leaving Hughes vote standing so Ger
tilted, reduced atlantis vote to 327. max
ing a change against af1lant of 15 votes
as compared with the number given him
by said certificate. and in the said third
precinct Of the Third ward. disregarded
the said certificate Of said judges and
clerks which certified that afiiant had
received PIP votes and said Hughes S26
votes, said six councilmen. including
Hughes declared that affiant had re-
ceiVed 224 votes and said Hughes GAL
votes. giving said Hughes thereby a gain
OF 3 votes over afiant in said precinct
over and above what were so certified
and that counting in the aggregate
more votes than the names on the poll
books and certificates Of the judges and
clerks showed had been cast in said pre-
cinct.
That the certificates of the judges
and clerks in said two precincts were in
due form. clearly legible and unambig-
uOus and were disregarded as aforesaid
for no other reason than the said as
sumption OF said councilmen that they
had the legal right to compute said tai
lies and ignore said certificates
That by the aforesaid proceedings,
upcn said assumption, the said six coun-
cilnen, including said Hughes, declared
over affiant who was, as aforesaid, elect
ed by IL majority over Hughes on the
face of all the returns as duly certified.
Whereupon said canvass adjourned sine
die And affiant AYERS that said returns
of said election have not been legally
canvassed and said canvassers have not
discharged their duty in that regard, in
this. to-N'it. that The result Of said can
ity of said council, said Hughes included,
and in this, to-wit: that said Hughes
vote as a canvasser of his own election
was void; aud IN this, to Wit that the
said returns from said first precinct Of
the Second ward and said third precinct
of the Third ward have not been legally
canvassed, but the certificates OF the
judges and clerks have been disregard
ed and in this, to-wit: that aff5ant has
not been declared elected mayor as the
returns of said election show"
(Signed) ALBERT PARKER.
Suit For Injunction.
The petition in injunction reads as fol-
Albert Parker versus J. W. F. Hughes
and s C Miller, J. B. Belts, J. w Mer-
gan, D. S Myers, NJ. Snattinger. John
Elliott, w s Clancy, w. H. Weber J.
s. Warner, Frederick Roundtree, s A.
Swendson, j. Nv. IT. Hughes being
members of the city council of the city
OF Topeka, Kansas, and constituting the
said council, and J. H Squires, city
clerk Of the said city Of Topeka, also w
;. Bergundthal, Joseph GriIey, George
veal w =. Ondney, II y NlcnOiS, =. a.
SwendsOn as councilmen Of the city of
Topeka, Kansas defendants.
PETITION.
said plaintiff complains of said de-
fendants and alleges that this plaintiff
and the said T. w. f. Hughes were rival
and the only candidates for the office of
mayor of the city of Topeka, Kansas, at
the regular election of officers of said
city held April -
The petition further says:
This plaintiff further alleges that said
council of the city Of Topeka, sitting as
canvassing board to canvass the votes
cast at such election. failed, neglected
and refused to discharge their duty as
q canvassing board in this, to wit, that
they disregarded the returns Of the
judges and clerks Of election, though
they We're in due form, clearly. 1egible