Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1911-01-03
Sheriff Case Yet Undecided.
Will be a Very Narrow Mar
gin in Any Event.

gin In ANY GVouG.
Judge Savage Throws out 1876 Bal.
lots as Defective, and Result
Not Yet Announced.
No decision has yet been received In
the contest over the election Of sheriff In
Oxford County. The case was heard on
Thursday, Friday and Saturday, before
Judge Savage, at the court house. Out
of 722 ballots presented before him, he
threw out 1875 as defective, but just what
the count Of the rest IL has not yet been
determined. 1t is certain that il is q
very narrow margin for one or the other
of the candidates.
Judge Savage arrived on the forenoon
train Thursday, and work on the hear
ing of the case was Immediately begun
at the court house. The petitioner in
the equity suit, j. Melvin Bartlett of
Stoneham, Republican candidate for
sheriff, was represented by Hon. A. j.
L
by of Mechanic Falls. Bertrand G. Nc
Intire of Waterford, the Democratic
candidate, who received the certificate
of election, was represented by M. l..
Kimball of Norway and Hon. d. j. Nc
Gillicuddy of Lewiston. Judge Savage
was accompanied by W. Fl. Cornforth as
stenographer, but there was little for
stenographer to do in connection with
the hearing.
At the outset Judge Savage asked that
the method of procedure should he that
the principles of law which would gov
ern the case should be laid down as far
as possible, and then the disputed bal
lots should be presented for examina-
ton, and the case could be closed with
arguments by counsel. He asked the
counsel to present their views as to the
principles which should govern the in-
quiry.
Mr.. Libby spoke first, taking the
general ground that the provisions of
the statute are mandatory with regard
10 how the voter shall mark his ballot,
and must be strictly observed. He cit
ed certain decisions in other states, and
bad with him the books for reference,
but Judge Savage had examined each of
the cases cited, and had with him copies
of the decisions.
Mr.. Libby also took the ground that
in the case of use of initials in voting
for a candidate, there is no presumption
of law that the voter intended to vote
for the same candidate whose name in
full appears elsewhere on the ballot
On the question of initials Mr.. Kim
ball argued that the ballots should be
counted.
Mr.. McGillicuddy cited the fact that
the decisions of the courts in these IN at
tiers are not uniform, but the general
tendency of the decisions Is toward
lliberality, and common sense should be
used in the Interpretation of the law.
With regard to the matter of distinguish
ling marks, he argued that nothing
should be considered as a distinguishing
mark unless it appears evident that the
mark was made as an iden tifying mark.
Judge Savage then expressed his
views as to certain general principles
which should govern. in the inquiry. In
sense, he said, the intention Of the
voter is not always regarded. The ques-
ton is, is his intention expressed by a
legal marking of the ballot? In this
state, the statute is mandatory, and
must be complied with, so far as the
marking of the ballot is concerned. At
the same time, many of the states give
quite liberal construction, with regard
to what is mandatory.
Voters should not be DISTINGUISHED
Unnecessarily, unless the law requires
it. 1t should be considered whether
the voter Intentionally or otherwise
marked his ballot 10 some other way
than that provided by the law.
Ballots are not invalidated by marking
with ink or with colored pencil. The
law does not say with what the cross
shall be made.
In the case of the use of initials, it is
the duty of the court to consider and
ascertain as far as possible for whom
the vote was intended.
With regard to distinguishing marks,
the court has not laid down any general
rule. The question is, what is dis
tinguishing mark? An examination OF
all the authorities shows three groups
of Distinguishing marks, and in relation
to these there is varying construction by
the courts. Judge Savage expressed
his leaning toward the construction that
marks should be regarded as distinguish
ing if purposely made as such, but not
any marks which are accidentally or in-
advertently made.
Then began the presentation of the
722 ballots in dispute in this case, which
were in the custody of Clerk of Courts
Whitman. This part OF the case made
, apparent something of the amount oil
, work involved in the preparation and
' presentation of this case. In the first
> place, as preliminary, four or five men
spent nearly three weeks in an inspec.
5 ton of the ballots in the thirty eight
, towns and plantations Of the county
l Then after the case was in the courts tht
: several town clerks were summoned be
fore commissioners and the disputed
ballots were separated from the others
, numbered and placed in the custody Of
the clerk of courts.
Each of the counsel had in his pos
session copies of the disputed ballots
properly numbered, and all the ballOtl
were scheduled and arranged so that the
8 inquiry proceeded Systematically ant
regularly. The towns of the county
= were taken up one by one, and the bal
!, lOtS laiu QUO ny ouo ocioi0 vuuSO oe'
!. age, with statement by the counsel fol
one party or the other of the ground D
s objection to the ballot. In book pre-
:, pared for the purpose Judge Savage
noted the number of each ballot and thu
9 ground of objection to it.
OF the 700 and more ballots, abou
half were objected to on the ground o
J. Iirregularity of the cross in the square
J. These were in great variety OF forms
Some had been apparently retracted no
in line with the original marking, 81
that they showed two or more lines Il
each leg of the cross. Some were dis
L tinct double crosses. Once in a Will
there was a check mark instead OF
cross. Quite number had a pencilet
Hoop running from one leg of the eros
q to another, and some of the crosses wer
ii made heavy and wide by numerous line
y with the pencil. The ground of objet
ton to all these irregular crosses IL tia
70 they are distinguishing marks.
OF the rest Of the ballots, there are
y great variety OF alleged defects. Their
% are stickers put on so as to cover Ia
Is name of the Office; stlckers bottom sid
ly up and diagonal; stickers in the wron
I'd column; stickers of which a part wa
or gone, so that they read for "trand {
% McIntire; crosses made In one squaI
aud then erased and cross made in al
other square; and various other forms
+ irregularity.