The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-03

at the same time he submitted that
he could ask the court to consider the
whole record and ii q mistake haG
been made that it correct it. This
statement had, of course reference to
the question which has been raised
by several lawyers as to whether the
Board of Aldermen did not err when
they purged the registration lists of
any names whatsoever. That question
was not argued before Judge JUS
tice but the fact appears clearly upon
the record in the case which is full
and complete and of which the court
may take judicial cognizance.
Mr.. Battle then proceeded for some
ten minutes or more to argue the
main point heard by Judge Justice,
taking the ground that the proper
construction of the term used in thS
Watts law. one third of the register
ed voters registered at the last pre-
ceeding municipal election, meant
voters in the sense in which the word
is used to designate a man who has
right to cast a ballot. The word ''vot-
ers' in that act, argued Mr.. Battle,
is the important word in the section:
that the terms registered" and reg
istered at the last municipal election"
are in the nature of participial adj
jectiveS descriptive of the kind of
voter meant and not removing in the
case of petitioners the prescribed
qualifications necessary to fit man
to cast a ballot.
During the course of his argument
Mr. Battle was twice Interrupted by
Justice Brown, asking questions.
On the first occasion the Justice
wanted to know how, in the light of
the fact that the day of the city cleo
ton was on the first day of May, 1t
could be required that man should
have paid his poll tax before that
date when the books went into the
hands of the sheriff only in Septem-
ber and again if non-payment did
not prevent a man from registering
whether, if he was qualified to reg
lister he was not qualified to vote
Mr.. Battle answered the first
question by claiming that the mat
ter of the poll tax applied only to
the payment for the preceding year
and on the latter, again took up the
subject of what was voter citing die
tionery definitions and certain cases
having to do with the question of who
was q qualified voter.
Mr.. Battle will continue his argu-
ment this morning and will be for
lowed by w. b. Jones and Col. T. M.
Argo for the petitioners. and w. \.
Jones, of the anti-saloon league who
appears in the case for the first time
at this hearing will close for the city.
the appellant.
1t is expected that the court will
render decision at an early date.
in order to dispose definitely of a
matter that has been a vexed city
question for several mouths.
Other Appeals Heard.
Other appeals argued yesterday
were:
Kearns VS.. r. r., by McCrary and
Ruark, for plaintiff; Manly and Hen
dren. for defendant; Clark VS. States
Vile. submitted briefs under rule
12, by j. B. Armfield, for plaintiff.
Armfield and Turner and j. B. Mich
olson for defendant. Lane VS.. Com
missioners (Rule 12) by Overman and
Gregory for plaintiff; T. c.. Linn, for
defendants. Eubanks VS.. Alspaugh
(Rule 12) by Furches, Coble and
Nicholson and u. V. Long, for plain
tiff: Armfield and Turner and Il. v.
Linney, for defendant. Mills VS.. Lum-
Der Company, by Adams. Jerome and
Armfield for plaintiff; Hinsdale and
Hinsdale for defendant.