The Hawaiian gazette., 1906-11-27
THE ANSWER
OF |AUKEA
CFrom Sundays Advert!seD

(From Sundays Advert !ser)
Curtis p. Iaukea. his attorneys being
w. A. Kinney and w. S. Edings, has
filed his answer to the complaint of
Arthur NJ. Brown, contesting his cleo
ton as county sheriff, in the Supreme
Court.
He admits the general facts of the
holding of the election, the qualifica-
ton of Brown as a candidate and that,
as result of the return of the count,
the county clerk tabulated the returns
and declared that Brown received 272l
legal votes and the respondent, Iaukel,
2735 legal votes, and that the respon-
dent was declared elected to the office
the two years commencing at IL o'clock
m. on the first Monday in January, 10 Z,
and that the clerk did thereafter de-
liver to him a certificate of such cleo
tion.
Respondent neither admits nor denies
certain allegations but leaves complain
ant to his proof. This refers to a state
ment of the votes returned by pre-
cincts.
He denies that all of the legal votes
cast at the election for complainant
were not counted for complainant. This
denial is extended to the specific ale
cation that more than 22O legal votes
for Brown We're not counted for him.
or any number of legal votes, and
further it is denied that more than 16)
votes, or any other number. We're
counted for respondent which were not
legally cast for him.
Denial is made OF the claim by Brown
that count of the legal votes would
have given him majority thereof of
more than $50, or any majority what
soever.
Respondent denies that the election
and the returns, as complainant alleg-
ed, are false, fraudulent or untrue.
Then he takes up the specific state
ments of the complaint. as to improper
counting in various precincts, denying
them In their order.
The denial of Browns claim of a
majority is repeated, with reference to
the county clerks tabulation, includ-
ing the allegation that If all the legal
votes for complainant had been count
ed he would have received over 2950
NOltS. II Is that any llltboi
votes whatsoever were counted for re-
spondent.
Respondent denies that many or any
errors against complainant were COM
mitted in the counting of votes by the
respective officers of election by not
keeping proper tally of the votes, or
by not counting the votes I'm the man.
ner directed and required by law. or
by counting votes for this respondent
which should have been rejected, or
by rejecting and refusing to count
many or any votes for said complain
ant which should have been counted
for said complainant.
Respondent denies that all or any of
the acts set out In said petition were
done and committed for the intent and
purpose OF holding an undue election
and with the desire to prevent an hon
est expression OF the popular will at
said election or a true ascertainment
of the real votes of the qualified cleo
tors residing In said county who voted
at said election; and denies that in pur-
suance of such conduct on the part of
the election officers the popular will of
the voters at said election was not as
certalned but was defeated, as alleged
In said petition; and denies that any
acts or things We're done or committed
with the intent and purpose OF holding
an undue election or for any fraudu-
lent or unlawful purpose whatsoever.
And further answering said peti-
tion. said respondent alleges that at
said election. so held as aforesaid on
the 9Th day OF November, 1905. a large
number OF ballots, the exact number