Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1912-09-11
COURT CONSIDERS
ELECTION CASES
PLEA IN ABATEMENT OVER
RULED BY JUDGE
In Cobolini Quo Warranto Case
Against Cole-Argument Of Plea
Occupies Attention of Court Dur
ing the Day Yesterday.

What is considered an important
point was gained by the s ate yes
terday when Judge w. B. Hopkins
overruled a plea of abatement by the
defense in the case Of the State Of
Texas. EX. Rel. Louis Cobolini VS..
A. B. Cole, now on trial in the dis
trict court. The decision was ar
rived at after an argument by both
sides beginning at 1 1 o'clock in the
morning and ending, after a reces~
Of two hours, last night at o'clock
The defense held thai there was
no difference between quo warranto
I proceedings, instituted by the state.
and the suit by Louis Cobolini
against A. B. Cole for the office Of
mayor. Gordon Boone, counsel for
the defense, after reading he allega-
tions as to fraud in the municipal
| election last spring. and the quo
warranto proceedings. filed the mo-
| tion in abatement He was of the
opinion that it was not necessary for
the relator, Cobolini, to file quo
warranto and suit, they being iden-
tical in their nature.
| ] r. Dougherty, for the state. ho'1
that the state was not interested in
the action for Cobolini, and that the
quo warranto proceeding was a state
proceeding in which the state con-
cerned itself with the purity and
secrecy of the ballot. The sta e. he
said, is not interested in CObolini as
the aspirant to the office Of mayor
and that the district attorney fled
the proceeding in the interes- Of the
whole people. He stated that the
state Of Texas is independent in that
particular case and only USE ne
name of Cobolini as a matter of con-
venience.
Mr.. Dougherty said that the com
mon law plea of abatement is not
sustained in the State of Texas, and
that the defense could not seek that
line of action. He cited decision
in various Texas courts which he
claimed sustained his opinion, and
contended that a plea of abatement
Of quo warranto does not apply in
this case. He did not believe tha- it
was the defense's right to assert a
plea Of abatement.
He contended further that the sui
of Cobolini against Cole is a ques-
tion Of private right, not one in
which the public is interested, and
| entirely dis inguishable from a po-
litical matter in which the public is
| interested
Mr.. Dougherty referred to there
being two line-ups at the polls in
some of the precinCs at the con-
tested eelction, and that a third can
didate was left at the post because
no provision had been made for a
lineup for him. The fact thai there
was a lineup, he said, absolutely de-
stroyed the validity Of the cleo ion,
and asked if the court could sustain
IN cleo ion that had been held in
that manner. Hhe charged that the
lineup was an avenue for fraud
In closing his argument, Mr..
Dougherty said that the state is safe
guarded in its rights only by and
through the quo warranto procedure.
f. w Seabury. for the state, sub
mitted additional authorities to
those offered by Mr. Dougherty, and
supplemented the lat er's argument.
He claimed that plea of abatement
in proper action, as involved in this
instance, is not tenable in the sta
Of Texas, and has not been since the
Sixteenth Texas report came cut.
Mr.. Seabury said this is not civil
suit, but a high prerogative unit,
and if the State Of Texas is a nomi-
nal party, then it could not control
the litigation.
Boone. for the defense. in his con-
Guiding argument, cred cases in
which he sought to show that moth
ing could be found that was against
the sustaining Of the defense's plea
in abatement He also sOugh- TO
show that the quo warranto pro-
cedure Is not an action by the state,
but in fact is a contest for office be-
! tween the defendant and plaintiff.
! He contended that the suits are
identical. their object being TO oust
Cole and induct Cobolini. and held
that the states is a nominal party
and asserts no rights.
The court then announced tha,
the plea is overruled.
In opening SQUIRT Judge Hopkin7
announced that il was desired that
the trial be conducted in as quiet q
manner as possible. He stated that
though the cases before the court
were of political nature, politics
!. would not be permitted TO enter into
the trial. He also stated that any
one entering the court room armed
would be held in contempt of court
This order included officers as vel
as citizens.
Probably hundred witnesse: