Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-02-11

and contained the names OF 1888 pei
sons claimed to be residents OF salt
city and to have voted at the said cleo
ton. The county auditor gave the re
quired notice preliminary to the can
vass Of said petition and 1t was can
vassed by the board of supervisors o
Wapello county commencing on Janu
airy 2nd and ending January 9Th, 1913
at which time the contestants herein
appeared filed objections and contested
the sutficiency of the petition on vari
Gus grounds, not necessary at this time
to detail as they were all, with many
more interposed upon the trial in this
court, and so far as deemed import
ant will be hereinafter considered
At the close of the canvass before the
board the petition was found to be
sufficient and a resolution to that ef
feet was formally adopted on January
9Th, 1913. The contestants appealed
from the action Of the board and all
formalities having been complied with
the cause was presented to this court
with request from both sides that it be
advanced upon the docket and given an
early hearing. This was done and the
cause tried, argued and submitted, com.
mencing on January oath and ending
on January 30th, 1913, and this early
opportunity is availed of to render a
decision while the evidence and argyll
ments are we'll in mind.
At the outset it may be well to state
that objections were made by contes-
tants to suff1ciency of notice of canvass
to the poll books from two wards,
of some of the soliciting
witnesses and some other matters not
now called to mind, which appeared
to be so purely technical and without
merit that time will not be taken to
consider them.
In order for a petition of general con-
sent to be sufficient to place city OF
$500 people or over under the provi-
sions of the mulct law it must be
signed by majority of the voters re-
siding there and voting at the last
preceding election On the face of the
petition in question it has majority
of 353. The contestants interpose
challenges to 1852 individual names for
various causes to be hereinafter emu
and to several hundred other
names because not witnessed by repu-
table persons. Each petitioner signed
a separate petition and each signer Is
numL cred from No. 1 to No. 1888 and
the separate challenges are herein re-
ferred to by number instead of name.
Dead and Removed Count.
Nos 1882 and 1855 are challenged
because they died after signing petition
and before petition was filed or can
vassed. Nos. 23O, 1915 and 2,776 are
challenged because since signing petit
ton and before it was filed or can
vassed they had removed from the
city. The statute provides that the
siding in the city and who voted at the
last election. He is qualified if he is
a resident at the time Of signing and
voted at the preceding election. He is
not required to keep his residence
good until the petition is filed nor to
undertake that he will not die before
that time. 1t has been held that men
who voted and who died or removed
from the county before the canvass OF
the petition shall be counted in the
sum total Of the poll list and it is as
reasonable to hold that men otherwise
qualified and who die or remove from
the county after signing should be
counted on the petition.-Gjerset ct al
VS. Drexel ct al 1876 N. w. R. 53S.
Nos. 2,761, 2,54s, 2.751, 2,1S1, 374 and
1, 100 are challenged because it Is
claimed that they were non-residents
Of the city at the last election, that
they voted illegally and that they were
not residents when they signed the
petition The poll books are made the
sole and exclusive evidence of the par
ties who voted at the last election and
If their qualification as voters and 1t Is
not the province of the court to go be- |,
hind them and determine whether the
voter was legally qualified to vote.
The signer must not only have voted,
put he must be resident of the city.
oe voter and the only purpose OF j
making further qualification of resi-.
lence is that he should be resident
It the time Of signing. The evidence ;
establishes that the last three voters
numbered were not residents at the |
line of signing the petition and their
James should not be counted. The
irst three will be counted.
Nos. 1855 and 2,723 are challenged
because signed out of the state and no
sufficient showing as to reputability of
witnesses and official character of no.
airy. The petition may be signed any
'lace so long as the signer is qualified.
The other objections in these instances
re not meritorious.
Challenge to No. 1879 is not good as
he name on poll book is the same
lame signed, and the only trouble is
hat the signer writes Jr. to look like
,r.
Nos. 1871, 2,319, 100 and 1,13S are
because not Identical with
James on poll books. An examina-
ion of the names and comparison with
'oll books, and samples of signatures
clearly indicate that the names are
IDENTICAL and the apparent differences
re in the manner of writing various
etters and the names should be
ounted.
Nos. $50 and 437 are challenged be-
ause dated on Sunday, Nov. "a. The |,
after is unquestionably dated Nov. 81. i
here may be some question as to the
ormer, but it is allowed to stand as a
hereinafter allowed is as J.
Challenge to No. 91S on ground Of