Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-05-16
LAWYERS ARGUE
BURLINGTON CASE
Supreme Court to Decide Ward
Election Contest of Morgan
VS.. Sullivan.

Montpelier May 15.-The work of the
May term of supreme court was nearly
finished to-day. The Addison county
case of town of New Haven against T..
s. Weston was heard during the morn
ing. In the afternoon NJ. &. Webber
argued for the town briefly in the New
Haven case.
The Chittenden county case of Frank
T.. Morgan against j. F.. DeNarennes
and others took up most of the afternoon
until adjournment at about go. This Is
tine Burlington election case and comes
to supreme court on a petition for a writ
OF mandamus. H. S. Peck opening the
arguments for the petitioner, sketched
the conditions of the case Last March
q tie vote was declared FOR the office of
alderman in ward 4. Rurlngton, this be
Ing changed to n majority of one for
Candidate sullivan. |, is the claim of
the petitioner thar two ballots. counted
by the inspectors of election. were not
marked with cross In the square, as is
directed 10y Jaw. and that tina, law is
mandatory It is argued that unless tho
voter makes a mark in the square that
Is evidently cross that ballot must
not be counted ON the ballots in evil
dcnce. one is marked with an indcscrlba :
bic character and the other is marked
so closely TO the lire as to make distinc-
ton Impossible.
| Both Mr.. Peck and A. H. Sherma n
largued that unless the court rules that Il
cross must be made In the square then
II any mark anywhere on the ballot you'd
| he valid and the whole secret ballot sys-
TEN Of the state woUld hc rendered "A
dead letter.
DEFENSE BASED ON CHARTER
| NJ. G. I.eary, for the petitionees, argued
that under the Burlington charter tho
| inspectors of election are to sort and
| count the ballots in March meeting. H.
argued that they had carried out ever
part of their duty and therefore thai
mandamus proceedings viii hot lie. H.
argued no fraud or attempt at fraud was
| evident The charter OF the city Of Bur
lington does not specify how the ballots
shall be marked.
| Both sides cited mary cases in various
States In support of their contentious and
| IN one case both sides Used the same
citation, Mr.. I.eary reading II must bc
counted" Whic MI. Peck read II must
not he counted" Finally Mr. 1eary's at
tention was called TO the report and
apoogtzed for his error.
| The last Rutland county case, that OF
the Herald and Globe association agains
| the Clere Clothing company, A. p. anc
s. c. Hogan and ID. A. Baker, was sub
mitted on briefs and the same procedure
was followed In the Addison county cas-
of State against Frank Meehan. CHARGE
with having parts Of three deer in nj,
possession during the open season
The two Chittenden county cases or
the trial docket we're continued. beinl
Charles II. Martin against Charles w
Pappin and Wilbur Field against Charles
Stoneham g. Co. The Franklin count.
case Of p. 9. MoKillop against N. N. Post
administrator OF o. A. Burton's estate
ana d. n Burton was also continued
The remaining cases on the trial dOcke
are James Il. Fitzsimmons against Rlch
| ardson, Twigg a. Co. OF Franklin county
| tho Fills Granite company case from
Washington county. and William Paag'
against ]. William McCarty Of Windsor
| county
Roswell NJ. Austin Of st, Albax>s, who
passed the bar examination last fall was
sworn into practice before the supreme
eoret lsks In the afternoon.