The Monmouth inquirer. [volume] (Freehold, N.J.) 1865-1933, 1905-12-07
Ballots Being Counted.

The lawyers for both contestants are
now using powerful Inagnifying glass
es which they use in assisting them in
discovering marked ballots. On Wed
nesday the board of election and the
array OF legal talent completed the
recount of the ballots cast in the first
district of Eatontown. Mr.. Close had
10 perfect ballots to his credit and Mr..
Francis 11S. Twentv-nine Close bal
lots and SO Francis ballots were pro-
tested and one rejected. Seven bal
lots were blank on the sheriff issue.
The second district of Eatontown
gave Mr.. Francis 157 clear ballots and
46 protested ones. Mr.. Close received
ITO clear ballots and 81 alleged i'm
perfect ones, which were laid aside
for the inspection of Supreme Court
Justice Hendrickson. There were
also three blank ballots in this dis
trict.
The second district of Freehold
gave Mr.. Francis Ill votes and Mr.
Close 1856; 108 Francis votes and 81
Close votes were protested. There
were five blanks.
The fourth district of Freehold.
where it was alleged that several of
the electors were bought up previous
lots in order to prove that they de
livered the goods, was taken up by
the board of elections that morning,
with the result that Mr. Francis
received ia and Mr. Close 11S perfect
ballots. Fifty-two Francis votes and
20 Close votes were protested. On a
separate string in the election box
were 10 Close ballots and four Francis
ballots which had been rejected by
the election officials
Forty of the SO protested ballots
cast for Mr.. Francis bore the names in
writing of candidates for the office of
poundkeeper when there were no reg
ular candidates. The Republican law
yers contested the protesting of these
ballots on technicalities and will re-
peat the contentious before Judge
Hendrickson. The first and second
voting districts of Freehold are pro-
vided with voting machines.
The recount in Holmdel gave Fran
is ITO and Close 1873 clear ballots.
There were 209 Francis votes and 10
Close votes protested.
The board of election adjourned at
o'clock and resumed its sessions
ON Monday morning.
On Tuesday during the counting of
the ballots for Sheriff nine were
counted without interruption from
either Council which was the subject
of remark.
Eight of these nine ballots were
cast for Mr.. Close. while the remain
ing one was cast for Mr.. Francis. The
tenth ballot was protested by coun-
sci for Mr.. Francis on the grounds
that it was a marked ballot, havinga
of 10 n IL. a ;
the end OF the county clerks sig
nature. This occurred in the western
districtic of Howell township. Mr..
Close wilfg gain five votes in this dis
trict, which originally gave Mr.. Fran
els 115 and Mr. Close 220 votes. AS
result of the recount the gentlemen
were credited width 81 and 155 votes
respectively. which left 81 Francis pro-
tested ballots and IS Close alleged de-
fective votes. This takes three votes
away from Francis making his votes
1l2 instead OF lis. and gives Close two,
making his total vote 222.
The board of election then opened
the ballot box from Farmin gdale bor-
ough. The original vote in this dis
trict was Francis, So; Close, 40. The
board reduced these figcres to 40 and
"a, oweing TO IS protested Francis
votes and 16 Close ballots. There was
Discrepancy i'll the election board fig
ures, which, substracted from Closes
gain was taken from Close and
credited to Francis, giving the latter
gain of two, which subtracted from
Closes gain of five votes in the town
ship of Howell, gives him an actual
gain of three.
The Middletown township votes are
now being counted.