The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1910-01-15

as follows: Precinct 5. II votes; pre-
cinct, A, 81 votes. These poll lists were
other poll lists. tally sheets and pa
pers, wherein the vote is recorded. was
shown, together With evidence of search
allowed to and did testify, as to the
number of votes cast in Precincts One
and Three in Salpmet tow otsa p as foc
3, SO votes-total, 1856 votes cast In the
township at the November election
1906
The law does not countenance any
rule which makes it impossible to dis
cover the number of votes cast at an
The court considers the evidence OF
the poll books produced the best 3 cyl cyl
denee Of e IN Which The
states the aggregate vote of the two
precincts admissbie The SUN makes sIo
Of the total number of electors
Township Vote.
1t is now commended that the vote
to do solely with the township vote.
This is not as the court understood 1t.
The court understood ths him to testify
counsels' contention is the true one:
when when t the defendant must do some
thing more than object to the force
of evidence to prove prima facie case.
either in confession and avoidance or
In eontradeton Of that t 0nere rrr by the Re
this cause, the defendant did not meet
it with any proof whatever: When ev-
tain precinct. ward or township. the
court, If it observes no reason to doubt
whatever to the contrary: Then
follows a lengthy legal dissemination on
domocile.
by many pages of authorities: that
where personal presence is. coupled
question es is not not. does the Individual in
tend to remain, but. on the contrary
has he no definite, and fixed. intention,
remains a short period. or long period.
providing he intends to remain indefi-
may conclusively show his domicile is
| in the place. A when he makes oath 1t
| is In the place, B.
| Declaration Conclusion.
may be determined by. his acts. and by
| his declarations Selfserving declara-
tons Il admissible at al; have but Il, lit
larations. being always admissible,
may, or may not, have much probatfve
feTes Gca are Well
| nigh conclusive of the fact Occasions
may arise on the other hand where
4
| head of selfdisservfng declarations
| have very. very, little weight and con-
In this case 22s individuals signed
the remonstrance, either by card or
| otherwise Under the rules laid down
| BY our supreme court. these 22s in
dividua1s are parties plaintiff and sub
| ject to the ordinary liability Of par
| ties plaintiff to pay costs 1t might
well be held each one of these indf-
viduals is liable for all the costs. That
being true. the sheriff, if called upon
! to collect from these plaintiffs the
costs of this suit, will not, in prac-
| tice. apportion It among all these z2s
individuals collecting aliquot parts
| from each one. His writ Will enable
him to collect the whole from that one
most accessible in location and of finan-
cial responsibility and that one may
pass the balance OF his life seeking
contribution from the others. It Is
doubtful If so Of these 22s indfvfdua Is
| have knowledge that they are parties
plaintiff; that IS true IL one-half that
was said regarding their financial fr-
responsibility is founded on fact. The
| fact they are liable for costs did not
disturb them, the fact they are parties
piaintfr is to them an KY proposition
Plaintiffs Wrongeda
The evidence would seem to warrant
the conclusion that at least some Of