The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-11-17
FERNANDEZ
DROPS It

Abraham Fernandez. by his counsel
Mr.. Edings, abandoned his contest for
the seat of Supervisor at Large for
Oahu in the Supreme Court yesterday
afternoon. Under rulings of the court
on points raised in the hearing, Fer
nandez gained but one vote out of 136
ballots examined. The ballots from
four precincts had been brought under
scrutiny. There was therefore Il tie
use in carrying the contest any further,
hence the petitioner gave it up.
Sacks of county election returns were
strewed upon the floor of the Supreme
Court room, and packages of ballots
taken from certain sacks Uttered the
attorneys tables. The ocl aston was the
| contest of Abraham Fernandez against
e. r. Adams for the seat of Supervisor
at Large in the Board Of Supervisors
of the County Of Oahu. Chief Justice
Frear and Associate Justices Hartwell
and Wilder sat, constituting the regu-
lar bench. w. $. Edings appeared for
petitioner, and E. A. Douthitt and r.
w. Milverton, County and Deputy
County Attorney, respectively, for re-
spondent. The parties were also pres
ent in person.
Mr.. Edings asked for a continuance,
saying it was Mr.. Ashford's case Mr..
Ashford was engaged in another court
and he (Mr. Edings) was unfamiliar
with the matter. AS 1t was Mr. Ash
ford who had secured the setting of the
trial for that day, he was sent for and
the court deciding that the trial should
proceed, induced Mr.. Edings to take
charge of petitioners case
C. r. BuclSland. chief clerk of the
Secretary's office, and Bernard H. Kele-
kolio, Junior clerk, came in with the
impedimenta. Mr.. Buckland's evidence
established the genuineness of the ex-
hibits, after which Clerk George Lucas
with knife dissected them as required
The first sack opened was that of
the first precinct, fourth district, which
contained 33 rejected ballots. Sixteen
of these were marked for Fernandez,
five for Adams and twelve for both or
neither, in some of the aforementioned
cases four district supervisors being
voted for when the choice was limited
to three.
Mr. Edings contended that "all the
cases in the books held that where the
voters intention was plain the ballot
|
was wrongly marked.
| Mr. Douthitt argued that wrong
marking of the ballot paper in any
part constituted means of Identification,
therefore made the whole ballot void.
The court reserved it's ruling and took
up the Individual ballots for inspection.
On resuming the sitting after the noon
recess the court ruled that the ballots
hn x,yIn
that an error in any portion invalidated
the whole. 1t held that fifteen of the
votes for Fernandez We're properly and
one improperly rejected, out of the
votes cast in the precinct thus far in
vestigated.
The ballots of the tenth, eleventh and
ninth precincts of the fifth district were
next examined. These were likely to be
among the most favorable of all the
precincts for Fernandez. but they did
not yield another vote for him which
the court would hold to have been i'm
properly rejected.
| Altogether 1876 rejected votes for Fer
nandez were submitted without any but
the single one already mentioned being
found which should have been counted
for him.
| Wnen the tOurtn sack nad Deen open
cd and Mr.. Edings submitted specimens
of the rejected ballots taken therefrom,
the Chief Justice after consultation
ruled that 'the ballots were properly
rejected
Mr. Edings said he was willing to go
ahead with the scrutiny, but did not
wish unnecessarily to consume the time
of the court.
| There was another short consulta-
tion. when the Chief Justice said
| THE court sees no reason, Mr.. Ed
ings, why you should not move for a
discontinuance."
Mr.. Edings at once made a motion
for leave to discontinue the case, which
the court promptly granted.
Among the ballots exposed to view in
the investigation were few obviously
marked improperly, but which never
theless We're found in the parcels of
counted ballots. AS these illegal speci-
ments We're not in the case at bar, they
remain mere discovered curiOsitieS I'M