The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-29
Both Sides Challenge
the Voters.
is PERHAPS A TIE
Jadge Fred Moore Heard Yesterday
the Contest Case Between Good
win and Upchurch For Alder
man of Raleigh and Will De-
eide 1t Today.


question in the contest in court be-
tween Messrs. c.. w. Goodwin and j
S. Upchurcn for the nomination fol
alderman for the second division o.
th.: Fourth ward
Judge Fred Moore is the only ono
who can answer that Question. ano
he will announce his decision this
morning. The contest was heard by
him yesterday, and he hoped to be
able to decide last night, but was un-
able because of other court duties &c
look into the case. This morning he
will name the winner.
And il is not certain that there vii
be winner, for there are phases oil
the case that show that there may DC
= TT Note. .Ii~t
ono or two votes, or that Goodwin
may win by one or two. 1t is al
guess work until Judge Moore an
nounces this morning how he decides
For four hours the case was pre-
scented to him yesterday, the tine be-
ing consumed in the hearing OF wit
nesses. the attorneys merely cnphas-
ing a few points and making no pro-
longed ;trgu:Gcnt The case 10 ur tn
Judge Moore on the facts as presented
and on his construction Of the pri"
mary law.
There was nothing sensational in
the case yesterday. There were no
charges of bribery and no allegations
of convicts voting. The questions
raised were three, these being: first,
as TO residence in the ward in time
sufficient to qualify voter; second
as to whether q son Of a half-breed
Indian could vote. third as to Wheth-
or a ballot OH which the marks for
some offices were for d larger num-
Der of candidates than legal excluded
the entire ballot or only for the Office
marked Incorrectly.
The day furnished some humor in
the examination of witnesses and III
their eccentricities and characteristic
replies. This humor was furnished
by one Sallie Darlington, by David
Fam and by an Old negro, Henry
Brown Each was distinct in its way
and each of these witnesses furnished
mirth for smiles and for laughter
Even Judge Moore showed his enjoy
ment by the twinkle of his eye and
q merry smile.
There were protests against legality
of voters for both UDchurch and
Goodwin. and while many witnesses
were put on the stand at the end OF
the hearing the contest had settled
down to three challenges of voters for
Upchurch. three of voters for Good
win and one ballot for Goodwin
claimed to be defective in having two
names voted for tax collector.
The parties challenged who voted
for UDchurch are j. f.. Britt, Lonnle
and Henry Johnson. it being claimed
that each of these lacked the neceS-
sary time for being legal voters in the
ward; thosechallcngcd against Good
win are Calvin Perry, G.. T. O'Neal
and David Nelson and the marked
ballot. Perry and O'Neal are on resi-
dence disqualification and Nelson as
TO being the son of a half breed In
dian, and therefore not entitled to
vote i'm white primary.
In opening the argument it was adj
mitted that the returns showed Up
church with 35 votes. Goodwin 81
and that the burden of proof rested
on Goodwin The counsel for the
contestant called eight witnesses, and
for the conteStce, Upchurch, about
thirty. Not all of these were put on
the stand. In the examination Messrs
James II. Pou, w. n. Jones and e. z
Maynard represented Goodwin, while
Messrs. w. b. Jones and L. B. Wo-
mack represented Upchurch.
w. f.. Austin, a policeman of Raj
eigh, was first put on for Goodwin
John Britt voted. This was objected
to by counsel for Upchurch, on the
ground of hearsay and disclosing &
secret ballot. Judge Moore sustained
this objection and then Mr.. w, n
Jones agreed that unless one who
had heard a voter tell how he voted
or the voter himself testified, no testi-
mony could be produced. Judge
Moore finally decided that the voter
whose vote was in question would
have to testify himself. On this ruling
Austin was released from the witness
chair and John Britt was called BY
counsel for Goodwin Britt being
present Judge Womack urged the
idea that the Australian ballot being
secret the witness ought not to bt
asked how he voted. and said he wa.
sorry that his friends on the Other
side were thus trying to make public
a secret ballot and destroy it's valu>
Mr.. Pou said he was sorry Judge Wo
mack was sorry and would take hi.
sorrow under consideration, but The
Australian ballot was to protect from
fraud
Then Mr.. Britt testified that hf
voted for j. Sherwood Upchurch. A:
to residence had lived in the seconC
division of the fourth ward from Jul,
to 21st of December, 1904, but since
then had lived in the third ward, ant
on the first of January was living il
the third ward, and that he had live
i'm no other ward since the 23rd o
December. A number of men, anon,