Norwich bulletin., 1911-10-14

There is considerable interest here
and hereabouts in the case brought
by Henry r. Palmer of the Road vot-
ing district against the town of Ston-
ington through First Selectman He
man J. Holdredge, in an effort to re-
verse The decision Of the moderator of
the central district that the town had
voted in fSvef Of liquor license, the
decision being based wholly upon the
face Of the returns. The complainant
in the case = the son Of Eugene Palm
er. Wh9 wa8 appointed moderator of
the Third - Road district, and he al
legss that there was an error in the
return mAaa 70 the central moderator,
and that the figures in the vote for
lios6se were trensposed and instad of
VStsAg for license the district actually
vsteS against noense- The returns
received by the moderator of the CEN
1rzi district were certified and sworn
to g the moderator and counters to
be cSs=ect: but after the central mod
orator ANNOUNCED that the total vote
of the toNn gave a majority of eight
cen Cor license. the claim was put in
that there was serious mistake in
the returns sent in by the Third dis
trict.
Petition fol g recount Of the vote of
the Third district was made to Judge
joel Fl Reed, OF the superior court, and
ne assigned the case for hearing
Friday in the superior court room in
New London Town Clerk Hinclkley
was present with the ballot box con-
tanning the license ballots counted in
the Third district and the complaint
ant and tho counters were also present
in court
Attorney Charles r. Thayer asked
that the case be postponed for one
week, as he would be occupied Ia the
supreme court the greater part of
1ad n q he
tnn7sy 10 summon IN some important
Witnesses He declared that Attor-
ney Hadlai A. Hall, who represented
plaintiff. had given him tentative con-
sent to a continuance for one week.
Attorney HEE seated to the court
thet there were i've voting districts in
the town Of Stonington, and that on
election night she Third district court
showed that ~ votes were cast against
license and IL for license, and that
the tabulate6 report in the ballot box
would serve as verification. In the
COPY sent TO ths central medera tor the
figures. by mistake. were reversed, and
rhers were Yes IL nnd No. 81 The
action is brought by Mr.. Palmer, who
made the mistake. and is supported by
the cSuntsrs. and M. Hull said he be-
itevsA that the copy of the returns
now In the ballot box is probably cor
rect. Question has been raised by the
newspapers Of the legal right to open
the license ballot boxes, as no pro-
vision was made in law for any such
action, but Mr.. Hull mentioned that
the proviaion of the law of 1909 was
clear On this point
Attorney Hull declared that the iiq-
ucr dealers Of the town Of Stoningten
had retained Attorney Thayer to rep
resenS them IN this matter and Mr..
Hull claimed that the liquor dealers
had ,lo standing in the matter. The
fact of holding license makes no diff
ference, for license is privilege and
not right. and that therefore Mr..
Thayer's clients had no standing. He
declared that Attorney George r. Nc
Kenna was counsellor for the town of
Stonington and was representing the
first selectmsn in this matter.
Mr.. Hull said there was no reason
for delay, but that there was reason
sor prompt and decisive action, as the
license year ended with this month
and that licensed dealers had filed APP
plfcatione for renewals with the coun-
ty commissioners. Everybody knows
thar the town of Stonington has voted
against no-ncense and there is no dis
pute on that point, but it is conceded
an error was made in tabulating the
returns made to the central moderator.
All the people of the town, said Mr..
Hull, know the conditions and there
is no question as to the actual vote,
for Stonington has only gone license
once IN twenty years before the pres
ent license year and has now voted
20 return to the old, the regular, no.
license system.
Attorney Thayer said he had COM
mupicstsd with the first selectman