The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1906-11-27
RECOUNT HEARING
INTEREST TING
Continued from Page one).

ballots while they were i'm the safe
at the county clerks office.
Continuing on cross examination, the
witness said:
There has never to my knowledge T,
been any work done i'm getting data T,
for this recount by any member of the
county committee. l have not been i'm I
the Republican county committee
rooms more than four times since the |
election. / suppose about an hour
would cover the entire time 1 have
been at the rooms since the election. 1
always carried the key of the safe, in
my pocket Yes. ] had it with me
while l was at the Republican COM
mittee rooms. No! do not think that
any body knew that I had the key
except perhaps the other clerks in the
office might have known but l did not
say anything to any outside about hav-
ing the key. l frequently opened the
door of the safe. 1t was done in the
presence of Kalauokalani the clerk. l
would open the safe to get out my
records in order to write up the work
of the office. No! 1 have not been in
the habit of working at the office of
the clerk at night except when I at
tend the sessions of the board of sup
ervisors. Some times l have been at
the office later in the afternoons after
Kalauokalani had left, in order to get
the accounts signed up so that they
could be made out for the board of
supervisors. Some times Mr. Lucas
would be late and the witness would
leave the catch on the door leading
into the hall, off so that Lucas could
come into the office and attend to sign
ing up the pay rolls and accounts"
The witness was then excused but
was recalled by Kinney who asked if he
had had knowledge of the combina-
ton of the safe to unlock. Buffandeau
replied that he had.
The counting of the ballots that had
been passed by the inspectors was
then taken up The ballots were pass
ed by the bailiff to Gear and Dunno
who then passed them to Edings and
Kinney who passed them, for further
inspection to Iaukea and Chairman
Mossman of the Democratic commit
tee, who i'm turn passed them to James
Thompson the clerk of the court.
Thompson kept tally of the ballots
counted for Brown and those counted
for Iaukea, scrutinizing them at the
same time. Kinney wanted to put
marks on the ballots, contending that
in event of the attorney for Brown
raising any objection to any Iaukea
ballots he desired to refer to the pre-
vious Brown ballots and have them
rejected if the objection to the Iaukea
ballots was sustained. Gear contend
ed that the proper procedure in such
case was to do as he was doing OBJ
ject to the ballot at the time. Kinney
did not insist any further on this point
The counting progressed for several
ballots until finally Kinney objected to
ballot that had been cast for Brown
being counted, on the ground that the
mark opposite the name of Harvey was
not a cross but a sort of star The
ballot was submitted to the count and
was ruled to have been properly count
ed similar ruling was made on an
objection by Gear to an Iaukea ballot,
that the marking was not proper.
Kinney objected to a Brown ballot
because the voter had marked four
supervisors instead of three, and then
had erased one mark. Kinney said that
under the law a voter could secure a
new ballot where one had been spoiled
, but he could not correct the ballot him
| self. Gear said that if there had been
any erasure on the ballot, they would
not claim it as legally counted. The
| court ruled the ballot had been i'm
properly counted.
Gear interposed an objection to the
next ballot on account of some mark
ing about the name of Jarrett, the De-
mocratic nominee for deputy sheriff.
The court ruled that the ballot had
been properly counted.
On an objection by Judge Gear the
court ruled that one Iaukea ballot that
had been torn, had been improperly
counted, as it was mutilated, unless it
could be proved that the ballot had
been torn after it had left the hands of
the voter Kinney stated that the in
| spectors We're present and he would
like to offer evidence on this point. The
Chief Justice decided that the canvass
of the ballots had better be proceeded
with.
| The court soon after sustained an
| other objection by Gear TO an Iaukea
ballot on the ground that there had
been an erasure after the name of
Harvey.
Up to this time the contestants had
broken even on the rejection of bal
lots, but the latest ruling enabled
Brown to reduce Iaukeas majority by
I one vote.
A third Iaukea ballot was rejected
ON account of ballot being mutilated.
Kinney raised a similar objection to a
Brown ballot and called the attention
of the court to the fact that all three
ballots had been torn in identically the
same place, showing that the mutila-
ton could not have been done by the
voters but after the ballots had left
the hand of the voter. Gear thought