The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1902-12-30
Contested ELECTION

e Chambers appeared for Mayor Adams
. the petitioner, and ex-Prosecutor Budd
: represented the incumbent, James D.
G elected.
e Mr.. Budd moved to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the facts averred In
Z the affidavit attached to the petition were
Q not sustained. There was nothing to
, show that the persons making the affidavit
: had knowledge of the facts. He held
that the allegation of mal-conduct on the
part of the election officers was of no &C.
count. 1t consisted in failing to bind the
box with tape and other minor acts. This,
Mr.. Budd said, could not in any way af-
feet the result.
Mr.. Budd also moved to dismiss that
part of the petition which claimed there
were marked ballots did not specify in
what manner the marking was done.
This motion was refused, but that regard
ing the binding with tape, etc., was al
lowed
Mr.. Budd then offered an answer to the
petition. He admitted the election, but
denied that Dr. Adams received larger
number of votes than James D. Fish did.
He admitted tie, and a recount in which
Fish was. declared elected. He denied
that the board of election had accepted
two illegal votes Of men who had voted in
| Philadelphia within the year. He ad-
mitted the rejection Ct the ballot of Sam
uel Wickward, but claimed the latter was
not resident of Beverly city.
Mr. Chambers opposed the admission of
this answer ON the ground that it was
crossbill, making sverments that were en-
tirely new and not mentioned in the petit.
ton of Mayor Adams.
Judge Nixon decided to admit the an
swer and the taking of testimony began.
Robert Shumard was the first witness.
He had lived in Beverly city since August
A few weeks prior to election he moved
over the railroad into Beverly township,
but he left some of his personal effects in
the city house for the purpose of retain
| ing residence. The rent of the house
was paid until after election. He went to
the polls, but was told by one of the cleo
ton officers that his vote would not be re-
ceived. This was outside of the polls.
Had he voted his ballot would have been
cast for Mayor Adams.
On cross examination Shumard said the
house in Beverly city was kept by his
father-in-law, Samuel Wickward, and wit
ness moved when the latter did After
being told his vote would not be received
in the city, Shumard voted in the town
ship.
Samuel Wickward lived in Beverly city
and a short time prior to election he
moved to Beverly township. He left
few goods in the city house, and still con
tinued to sleep in the city at the home of
his sister. He did this to retain his resi-
dence in the city. He offered his vote,
which was to have been for Adams, and
it was refused.
John Williams was called to testify to
the residence of Harry T. Simons. 1t
was claimed he lived in Burlington, but
voted in Beverly city. Mr.. Williams ties
titled that Simons married a Burlington
lady who lived opposite to Williams and
the latter saw Simons going to and from
the house daily.
Leon w. Estelow, a member of the
board of registry, told that he registered
Simons from No. 204 Stacy street, Mrs.
Simons giving the name Later Simons
applied to the board to remove his name
as he claimed Beverly city as his residence
Harry T. Simons was the next witness.
He admitted having married Burlington |
lady, with whom he lives He is in bust |
ness in Beverly, where he has a room in |
his fathers home, remaining there on
nights when his business kept him from |
going to Burlington. He claimed Bever. |
ly city as his residence, and was only !
awaiting the proper time to arrange a
home there. He voted for Fish.
Judge Nixon here announced his readi- |
ness to rule on the sections of the petition.
covered by the above evidence. There
was not the slightest doubt of Simons'
right to vote in Beverly. His marriage
lid not carry compulsion to live with his
wife at her home, nor was she compelled |
to go to his fathers house He had a
right to live in one place, she in another,
as long as they mutually agreed to such
an arrangement and he could claim his
residence where he pleased.
In the matter of Shumard and Wick
ward, the judge said they had no right to
vote in Beverly. Shumard was boarder,
and left when Wickward did. The latter
gave up the house he occupied in the city
and surrendered the key. He continued |
to sleep in the city but did not go to the
house he had formerly rented, but went to
the home of his sister. In no sense was
he resident of the city but was merely
visitor at his sisters home.
This disposed of this part of the case
and the next move was to examine the /
ballots which were claimed to be marked |
One of the tickets was a Democratic
ticket on which the heading of a Repub-
lican ticket with the name of John ]. |
Gardner was pasted. This, counsel for
petitioner claimed, was a violation of that |
section of the election law which pro-
vides that certain sort of paster may be
used and that any other form must in
validate the entire ticket This, counsel
insisted, was a marked ticket within the
meaning of the law.
Judge Nixon held otherwise. He said |
the law provides for tickets with certain
wording and he found that the wording
in this instance was just what the law
provided for. He could not, therefore,
pronounce this marked ballot
The other ticket to which objection was
entered was Republican ticket on which !
a paster had been placed over the name of
Adams, and in addition the name -. D. |
Fish" had been written.
The judge said as the name written was
the same as the printed name he could not
see that it affected the ballot in any man.
ner. He therefore pronounced this ballot
legal. The remaining eighteen ballots
were not marked in such manner as to |
cause serious objection.
The result of yesterdays trial of the
case leaves the matter in the same shape
that it was after the county board had re-
counted the ballots. and elects James D.
Il