The daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1902-19??, 1902-11-08
AsPRIL-sHALLcRoss CONTEST,

The contest of the vote in the
First Election district Of the Thir.
teenth Representative district was
called Immediately after the opening
Of the court this morning. Robert
II. Richards stated that the contest
| was made by reason Of the election
officers having counted one defaced
ballot. which should have been
thrown out. This one case would
not change the result OF the election
but. added to the thers in that Rep.
resen tative district 1t would change
the result. This ballot was proper
ly marked in the square enclosing
the device, but the voter had writ
ten the name OF Robert Carpenter
in column other than the proper
column.
In the same district J. Frank Ball,
for the Democrats, claimed that
seven votes had been thrown out
when they should have been counted.
The ballot box was opened, and the
defaced ballot was rejected This
made ShallclpSs vote lGG, and AS
prl S 81 in this district.
Walter II. Hayes presented the
contest in the Second Election dis
trict OF the same Representative dis.
trct, Claiming the illegal rejection OF
Three ballots.
The Democratic allegation was
exactly the same, although. AS Judge
Ball remarked, ''probably not the
same three baIlots The box was
opened, and two of the three ballots
were counted for Aspril, which loft
him only one vote behind Shalcross
The vote in this district is no W
Shallcr"ss lO2, Aspril lO5.
The contest 10 the Third district
OF the Thirteenth Representative
district was made by the Republican
on the gronnd that the eIecti on Of
ticers had thrown out, Illegally, four
vnteS. the Court ruled that the votes
were legally rejected.
In this district the Democrats
claimed that u vote for Leonard V.
ASprIl. as written on tho ballot, was
not vote for Leonard V. Aspril, Jr,
Argument was made by John Biggs
for the Democrats, who claimed that
Leonard v Asprll, Jr., and LIE o.
nard V. Aspral were different peo.
pie, aud that the ruling of the court
should stand.
Mr.. Hayen, for the Republicans,
that it was the intent of
The voters to cast thcir ballots for
Leonard V. Aspril Jr. as there was
no other Aspril a candidate for that
otnce. j. Frank Ball followed Mr..
Biggs in the argument that Leonard
V. Aspril, Jr. was one man and
Leouard V. Aspril was another man.
1t was in his opinion distinguish
ng mark for the purpose OF showing
low the voters voted
THEIR INTENT WAS p1AtN.
Chief Justice Lore said that the
,ooks are full Of instances where
'Jr. " is not regarded. The facts
ire that there is but one Leonard
Y. Aspril, candidate.
The only man that could be voted
or was Leonard V. Aspril. Il am
lot willing to throw out ballot of
! voter under such supposition. We
hink these three rejected votes
hould be counted for Aspril,' said
he Chief Justice.
In the Fourth district the Demo-
rats claimed that there had been
ourteen ballots illegally rejected.
he court, after examining the
'allots threw out six Republican
nd eight Democratic ballots. This
ives Aspril the election by u ma
ority of one vote, Attirst the court
brew out seven ballots of each side,
7hich made the election tie but
hey afterward found a Demo-
rat balIoJ marked with a
lad pencil mark on the back, which
ave the election TO Aspril by one
ote. Aspril's vote was sos, Shall.
r0ss's vote sol.
Mr.. Aspril may thank Sylvester
Townsend, Jr for his election,
hc requested the Judges to ex.
mine the backs Of tile ballots, aud
WAs \ thus that,tha Shal,pt that Ma Fl
w ~ = 1,kd