The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1909-11-16
Fined for Contempt of Court.

/, The Bordentown Township Board o
Election appeared before Judge Horner
In the Common Pleas court, on Thursday
to answer to rule to show cause why tn
members should not be adjudged guilt
of contempt of court for not obeying ar
order of the court to receive the votes o
certain men on election day.
V. Claude Palmer appeared as prescott
ing attorney in the case; Prosecutor At
kinson represented ]. Edward Lame anC
James M. Gregory, two members of th'
Bo ard, and Harold B. Wells and EckarG
P. Budd appeared for the other two mem
bers of the Board, John ]. Murphy and
Oliver L. Burtis.
Mr.. Wells stated that his clients did moi
controvert the issue, but pleaded guilty OF
contempt. At the proper time, he said,
counsel would like to make statement on
their behalf.
Prosecutor Atkinson stated that Messrs.
Lame and Gregory denied contempt Of
court and asked that testimony be heard
In their behalf, which was granted.
J. Edward Lame testified that he was a
member of the Bordentown township
election board. Late In the afternoon of
election day, five men named Haywood
Lee. John Williams, William Hale, VIII
liam Young and Robert johnson appeared
before the board with written orders from
the Court of Common Pleas of this
county, directing the board to permit
these men to vote. The men also had
certificates from the County Board of
Elections directing that the five names be
placed on the registry list
After some discussion, the mems names
were placed on the registry list and they
were handed ballots and official envelopes
for voting. After the men had retired to
the booths and appeared again to vote,
their right to cast their ballots was ques-
toned By Murphy and Burtis. The first
case considered was Joseph Gray He
presented the order from the court, which
was read to the Board. The order stated
that the Board ''is hereby directed to re-
ceive and file this certificate and to allow
such person to vote"
Mr.. Lame said vote of the board was
taken, resulting in two for and two against
permitting Gray to vote. As it required
majority vote of the board to accept the
ballot, 1t had to be refused. Witness made
record of the vote, and all four members
signed it as being a correct statement of
the vote. The same refusal took place in
the four other cases and the same record
was made.
james M. Gregory corroborated MI.
lanes testimony. He and Lame had
voted to permit the men to vote; the other
members had voted against receiving the
votes. All the members of the board saw
the orders from the court to allow the five
men to vote.
This concluded the testimony.
Mr.. Budd made some remarks on behalf
of Burtis and Murphy. He said the cleo
tion law is not as plain to the average man
as it might be, and even lawyers have
trouble in interpreting it. The law, to
some minds, is contradictory and confus-
ing. Frequently the act uses the words
''if the election board is satisfied" etc.,
certain things shall be done. In this case
the defendants were not satisfied and
thought they had right to refuse the
votes even in the face of an order of the
court. He read decisions on the election
law to show that the two men did not act
without reason, and contended that there
was no wilful disrespect of the court in
these mems minds.
Mr.. Atkinson asked that his clients
be exonerated of any charge of contempt
They had done all they could to carry out
the courts Instructions
AS far as the other two men were con-
cerned, Mr.. Atkinson said they were pres
ent in the court room and should have
been placed on the stand to explain what
motive they had for not complying with
the orders of the court, and upon whose
advice they had acted But as they had
had seen fit to plead guilty and did not
want an opportunity to make any explain
alton, the inference Is clear that it was a
case of wilful and fragrant violation of
the courts order.
Mr.. Palmer said the members of the
election board could not plead ignorance
or confusion. The law is clear, and a
decision of the courts, rendered oyer three
years ago, distinctly interprets the section
n question. Every citizen, no matter
how ignorant, knows and realizes that an
order from court must be obeYed.
In this case, he said, the trouble was
not of recent origin. A year ago there
was dissension about the votes of these
same men, 80 that all the members of the
board were familiar with the case. Fur
thermore the board had been told by
Prosecutor Atkinson what their duties
and powers were, and how to avert trouble
for themselves. If two members of an
election board have the right to refuse
votes at their pleasure, they might go to
any length and refuse all the votes in
district.
Judge Horner said he had considered
the case entirely from an impersonal
standpoint. Messrs. Lame and Gregory
were discharged of the rule for contempt,
as they had followed the courts written
instructions. as shown by the record
signed by the board.
If the entire election board had voted
to refuse the ballots the case might have
different aspect; as 1t is, however, there
appear to have been reasons other than a
question of opinion, and an evident in
tent not to honor the courts orders.
The election law, which every member
of the board has seen and read, states dis
tinctly that not to obey the order of the
court shall be considered contempt
I'd Gv.o Nf md
costs on each defendant for each of the
five cases of contempt, making $75 for
each man. The total costs figure about
$3.50. SO that the penalty is about $3.50 for
each defendant.