Evening star., 1901-12-04
ELECTION CASES ON TRIAL
DAMAGING EVIDENCE AGAINST DE-
PENDANTS AT HAGERsTowN.
Supervisor Brown Told How His As
sociates ON BOARD Deliberately
Tricked Him.
Special Dispatch to The Evening Star.

Special Dispatch to The Evening Star.
HAGERSTOWN, Md, December 4.-The
court falling to- sustain the demurrer to
the first count in the indictment against
Election Supervisors Charles B. South and
Thomas A. Mock for non-feasance in office.
the case came to, trial here yesterday be-
fore Chief Judge A. Hunter Boyd and Asso-
ciate Judge Edward Stake. Judge Boyd,
In delivering the opinion, said the allega-
tions set out in the first count Of the in
dictment. charging that the word republic
can had been substituted for the word pro-
h1bition after the name of the prohibition
candidate for controller, were sufficient to
require the traversers to answer, but
whether they were willfully negligent as
election supervisors was a matter to be de-
termined by the testimony and the facts
as brought out.
In his opening statement States Attorney
PoHenberger briefly reviewed the finding
on election day of a large number Of official
pallots with the word republican instead of
OF the word prohibition after. the name of
the prohibition candidate for controller.
For the defense City Attorney ]. Angus
tlne mason, one of the counsel, claimed the
to perform their duties faithfully. and that
the misprinting of a portion of the ballots
was the result of an error of the printer
sors.
Elias B. Hartle, clerk to the election su-
perVlsors, and Supervisor Brown were the
two most important witnesses for the
state. After telling how several motions
Of Mr.. Brown, relative to the printing of
the ballots, had been tabled, Mr.. Hartle
said President South delegated him to at
,. tend to the printing. Clerk Hartle said
the proof Of the ballot submitted to him was
correct and that he was positive the word
prohibition was opposite the name Of the
prohibition candidate for controller.
Ihr. Brown told how his motion that a
proof of the ballot be submitted to the
board was tabled, as was also his motion
that two supervisors-one republican and
one democrat-watch the printing Of the
a proof Of the ballot and was not allowed
to see any of the ballots after they were
printed until they were delivered to the
board. He testified that he called at the
printing Office to see what progress was
being made but the manager Of the print
ing establishment refused him admission to
that portion of the plant where the tiskets
Ex-Mayor NJ. L. Keedy. s. NJ Strife
Charles c. Fechtig, ST., and others testified
to voting misprinted ballots, two stating
they voted them knowingly. Charles AL
vey, attorney for the board, was also
witness.
James T. Briscoe. jr., printer Of the
official ballots, testified that he carried
out the requirements Of the law and of
the oath which he took; that he used every
precaution to protect the ballots, but that
they were printed on two forms, and the
error occurred in the second form, a proof
of which was not shown to Clerk Hartle
Supervisors South and Mock testified in
their own behalf, claiming they performed
their duties honestly and to the best of
their ability; that the reading Of the proof
of the ballot was left to Clerk Hartle Both
stated that they felt they had exercised
every precaution to have the ballots prop
erly printed.
At the conclusion of the argument, which
lasted nearly four hours, Judge Boyd an
nounced that the case would be held un-
der consideration until Saturday morning
The case has attracted much attention in
western Maryland and much interest Is
manifested in the outcome.