The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-10-01
81 q 4

: ~ n ~ n v7oqS5l7E Tf.--.- "a
bar-roon, of Mrs. Lizzie iLiesfedt, on
West Cary Street, hear said precinct
and also treated number OF voters.
8. That on the day of registration at
Shumakers Precinct, August %, 1908 SAID
NVendenburg went into said Anderson'f
bar-room and treated number OF voters
to drinks and cigars
4. That during said canvass, said Wen.
denburg frequently visited the bar-room
of Washington Bottoms, at Thirtieth and
p Streets, In the vicinity of Hardin's shop
Precinct, in stid county, and treated
voters to drinks and cigars.
g. That said Wendenhurg also visited the
bar-room of Herbert Floyd. on Brook
road, In jones' Precinct, in said county,
and treated voters
Tho paper closed with the statement
that the petitioner stood ready to cite
other instances If the committee decn1eo
it necessary. Tho petitioner charged ~
conclusion that tho treating done bN,salu
Wendenburg in the instances cited aoov"
was done by him with Intention to direct
ly or indirectly Influence voters IN my
behalf
I Question Raised.
The answer by the defense was very
brief and formal. It raised the question
Of Jurisdiction already passed upon by
the committee. It read as follows:
"Thls respondent pleads to the notice of
contest filed BY c. W. Throckmorton
against him as the nominee OF the Demo-
cratic party for tho office of Common.
wealth's Attorney OF Hcnrico county, that
your committee Is without Jurisdiction
Mr.. Smith then proceeded to ask that
tho original paper filed by Mr.. Throck-
morton be dismissed. Tho committee ~
self had decided that 1t was Inadequate
ana that Il new paper, with specifications.
must be filed. This second paper had
been presented, and the Investigation
should be under 1t, and the first made
ouate petition should be dismissed. Mr..
O'Flaherty objected 70 this on the ground
that Mr.. Smith wished to have the first
PAPER thrown out and then have the
whole case dismissed because the second
paper had not been filed before septem-
bcl 13th. the day after which no notice
Of contest could be filed. The commit
tee, through Its chairman, ruled that the
amended petition was part of the orig.
inal paper, and that the case should be
heard under both OF them.
Failing In this effort, Mr.. Smith filed
n third brief, formal paper 1t read as
follows: s1Qw
This respondent, in answerftto the
charges made by C. W. Throckmorton
against him, as the nominee Of the DEM
ocratic party for the Office OF Common
wealth's Attorney of Henrco county. says
that the charges are not true.
The Single Witness.
The case itself was then gone into.
Mr. O'Flaherty referred to the ruling OF
the committee in the Brauer matter In
reference to drinking, and said that under
this ruling the prosecution would rest its
case as soon as it had established one or
two or three Of the specifications filed,
and not so on with the others. The
committee would not be delayed with
cumulative evidence. Mr.. OFlaherty
thereupon proceeded with the testimony,
upon the understanding. however, that
he must show clearly that Mr.. Wenden-
burg treated with a view to influencing
votes.
Tho first witness was Mr.. Michael Bur-
ger, who testified the day before IN tho
Brauer case. He said that early In July
Wendenburg visited Wash. Bottoms sa-
Icon and treated fifteen or twenty people
there to drinks and cigars. The ma jority
OF the men were voters in the county.
During the two months preceding the pri-
mary witness saw Wendenburg at Bot
toms place frequently-once or twice
week--and saw him treat every time. So
far as he knew nobody else treated. Wen
denburg was talking about his candidacy
and asking people to vote for him. He
never made distinction among the people
he treated but gave drinks to everybody
there supporters Of himself, supporters
OF Bryant, voters In Henrco and voters
In Richmond, who had nothing to do with
tho county primary. Burger himself was
a Bryant man and voted for Bryant. He
said he was not Influenced by Mr.. Wen
denburg's drinks, He had known Wen
known him as a man who liked to treat
his friends, He had, asked witness to
drink with him long before the primary
was ever thought about
In the course of his testimony Mr.. Bur-
ger said he had never seen Wendenburg
at Bottoms place before the canvass. He
had been there since-was there on Mon
day last-and treated the crowd again,
after the specification was filed ?"
asked Mr.. O'Flaherty
Yes"
WAS he there between the primary
and the time the specifications were
flGd?'
mo"
"Umm-" said Mr.. O'Flaherty.
Mr.. Smith objected to calculations on
the part OF counsel. and the two lawyers
SpafIed WIFI each ollleF 1or Wnlle,
An Abrupt End.
To the great surprise of the audience
and the committee, the Investigation came
TO an abrupt close at this point, The
committee adjourned at O'Clock for din
mel. and returned In about an hour for
work,
AS soon as the body was called to order
again MI O'Flaherty arose and stated
that the prosecution had decided to rest
its case where II stood without any cumu,
latlve evidence. The questions involved
had been gone over thoroughly In the
Brauer affair and the prosecution had de.
cidcd 10 submit the case without nrgu,
ment. Mr., Smith interposed no particu.
lar objections, and the committee there
upon retired to consider the matter be.
fore IT, The defense did not deem it
necessary to introduce a single witness
The Verdict.