Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1911-09-15
WILL CARRY FIGHT
TO HIGHER court
Judge Henry w. Holt Decides
Contest of Recent Election
in Favor of the "Wets"
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
Will Be Made by No-License Ad-
vocates in Effort to Have the
Decision Reversed

Decision REVERSED
That the "drys" will make every
effort to have the court of appeals
reverse the decision handed down
Yesterday by Judge Henry w. Holt,
of the corporation court, in regard
to the contest of the election held
here on August 1, which decision
upheld said election as legal ano
valid, was the assertion of counsel
for the no-license faction yesterday
afternoon, following the announce
ment of Attorney H. H. Blease that
the fight would be carried before the
higher tribunal on constitutional
grounds. Several conferences were
held by the "dry" leaders and their
LAWYERS, and the determination to
wage the battle to finish seems to
have been reached by practically IN
animous agreement.
In his opinion on the main ques-
ton at issue Judge Holt says: I'll
1909 another local option election
was held in this city, which resulted
in a majority of 20 votes being cast
against the licensing of the sale OF
Intoxicating liquors. The result OF
that election was also contested.
sit appears that the exac:
question in issue now was presented
then. Although the issue remained
the same, the position Of the parties
has changed = - This court
is therefore called upon to decide the
same issue it decided two years ago
49, = = = We know of no reason
for departing from the position then
taken. We believe that the law to-
day is as it was two years ago."
The court further ruled that I'M
|der their OWE contention tho ffteen
men who signed the petition 1. con
test the election were not qualified
voters, and therefore had no stand
} :ng with the court. The opinion
then goes on to say:
at must also be remembered that
there is nothing in this record show
ing, or tending to show, fraud, OF
showing, or tending to show, that
, any who were entitled to vote were
prevented from voting, or that an!
who registered were not duly reg
; istered = = *The complaint
must be dismissed
/ When Attorney Blease asked fol
a stay of proceeding that he nigh
| prepare, Judge Holt ruled that un
Ter the statute there could be no ap
t PEAL. Mr.. Bleese then stated tina
; he would go to the supreme court
: on constitutional grounds, for wri
: of error.
r Opinion of the Court
After reviewing the petitionini
. for ofthe election, the ordering and tn
r holding thereof, the subsequent fill
ing of the contest by the "drys" an
the answer and demurrer by tn
= "wets" the court goes on to say:
i "Their (the petitioner's) position
l is this: They claim
j., "(1) That this Treasurer's lis
: and certificate do not comply wit
!. the requirements of section 3S of tn
r Constitution OF Virginia, and
"(2) That until this section
complied with no valid election ca
be held. In other words, they clair
that it is just as necessary a prere
O quisite to the right to vote for one
d name to appear on that list as
( is for it to appear on the books {
the registrar; that said list is in fat
- part of the registration provide
for by the Constitution, the langl
r age of their petition being that sal
= election was illegal"because tn
Treasurer of the City of Staunto
+, did not file, as required by the Coz
0, stitutiOn and laws of this State, fiy
- months before the regular electio
to be held in said city in Novembe
l. 1911, with the Clerk of the CorpOr;
g ton Court for said city, list of a
=, persons in the City of Staunton VIII
e had paid, in the manner prescribe
n by law, not later than six month
$. prior to said election, the State pc
70 taxes required to be paid by the Col
1t stitution and Laws of this State ft
lie three years prior to the year 191
81 and the said Clerk of said court di
not make and certify the copies I
said list which he was required /
law to make and certify, within tt
= time prescribed by law, and did NJ
in deliver copies thereof to the Sergeal
n of the City of Staunton within tt
ct time he was required by law to d
= liver the same" and further "b
n cause the Treasurer of the City
re Staunton failed and omitted to NAL
rs and certify to the Clerk of the Co
~ poration Court for said city, as r
e. quired by law, list of the persol
le who had paid the poll taxes assesse
Is and assessable against them for tt
ar three years next preceding Mover
Der, 1911, in the manner prescribe
ed by the Constitution and Laws of tn
a. State, and within the time prescribe
y. by law"
r. "In 1909 another local option ele
V. ton was held in this City, which r
" suited in majority of 20 vot
against the licensing of the sale
Intoxicating liquors. The result
of that election also was conteste
b. Among the reasons urged at tn
IN time for the setting aside of tn
y lelection were the following, as s
n tout in the complaint then filed:
p That the Treasurer of the CT
Of Ct Staunton did not, at least Fl,
months before the last preceding r
ed gular election, prior to the said ele