The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-12-12
lContinued from Page One.)

should
errors change result The petioner thereup4h took
the very frankly gave testimony which showed that as
work: but those precincts his nor!na
to change provided other were not also
which would operate against H m III as to two other precincts
matters that would not aid him under
The court then proceeded with the precincts with regard to
which the petitioner had definite and o"n' b na
an themselves would affect the result atough
ether discovered which still left his opponent the
lead but majority majority OF the court then held
that the peitone nad maze OF" @ A( f al the ballots in those
precincts defense and rebutta ballots be
defense and convenience instead OF at
of the petitioner might proceed in order to show
possible had been committed against num- the cor
s ses Of which would OFFSET the errors discovered "
The respondent objected introduction of the ballots
in evidence until it was armavey that they the
condition which they when they were cast and when
legal the satisfaction of the court
witstandng that clerk in the county clerk oce who
was also an republican committee which
composed largely Of special adents OF the m and
county the ballots by OF knowing
d ba The ballots had actually been tempered with but the
eouu a - e h ;dn a 9ostnoned until after all the back
ages presented and opened to give the in
observe their condition in
when they nd ets e o ns a s M @
only precincts with reference those alone that
to an attempt to show that the ballots had tempered
with The court now holds upon the entire
the condition which they when
deposited with county they been tempered
cannot be preserving prescribed by law
question their and especially
view of the facts in this that no one so closely Identified IN
the candidates the committee conducting his
place in which the ballots kept We
5nG qpon M au on tn par TFe the
of the inspectors other officers having ANYTHING to DO
There indication whatever that single vote was
actually marked for the purposes OF Identification or voted in
otherwise the exercise OF the voters free choice
@ iori of ~ for NJ ankea but an examination OF the bal
precincts counting the ballots held good by them They failed
They failed credit Iaukea with which
eh Ste figures the should modified
their rulings as to give akea 239 votes and Brown 23
upon the ballots counted by the inspectors the court
the other Several hundred thus challenged The court
passed them precinct by precinct stating howver that the
the light of further knowledge after the conclusion Of the
e sa a end GO that ts ad n cond for Bn net gain of for
Upon going these again since the close OF the the eo
application ruling shows that these
S Seo and nc eauna Browns zn wih majority Of
On the preliminary examination Of the ballots rejected by the in
for respondent early the took the position ballots
hd bn by the Inspectors so on that sround should be-
Der of had been marked and this question reserved
and decision the close OF the evidence majority of
marked invalid only the classes of officers directly affected
spors purpose ascertanng many
been cast for the respective candidates found that 153 OF
which with OF the same class counted by inspectors but
cast and rejected counted by the inspectors for Brown thus
giving laukea gain am 9f, 90 and majority of 49,
just mentioned counsel for the respondent discovered which
overcoming majority and
eayds the s1nneT Ten Irrespective Of the elias" Of votes just re-
10 sum up starting from the inspectors standpoint the inspectors