Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1914-02-03
JAMES V.TREHY
WINS HIS CASE
Judge Chichester Announc-
es Decision in Norfolk
Contest Case.
MAKES FORTY PAGES.
Richard w. Peatross Fails to Prove
Charges, as Evidence Did Not
Show Fraud Had Been Committed.

Fredericksburg, Va, Feb. 3.-Judge
r. H. l.. Chichester, presiding in the
Corporation Court Of Norfolk in the
contested election case in the suit OF
Steele and others against Trehy,
mailed on Monday his opinion AMI or
der dismissing the complaint and
awariing the certificate of election to
James V. Trehy, as clerk Of court.
The opinion is lengthy one, contain
ing some 40 typewriter pages.
A great many questions originally
involved in The contest were not prov
en- ard were abandoned by the cor
testants. it was charged that Rich
ard w. Peltruss and James V. Trehy
received the greater lrlr7sheT OF, bal
lots lsAnlly cast at the election Of No
vember 4th, 1913, for the followins
reasons: That one of the Judges OF
election at the 5th precinct an7 one
more of the clerks of the election,
prepared, or assisted in preparing, or
inspected a large number of ballots OF
persons who voted at said precinct
VINO registere; after the first day of
January, 1914. 1t was shown by .
evidence that one or two persons VINO
were registered had their ballots pre-
/ pared by one of the judges OF election
and that the judges of election in
y Erected, CT stoccS where Il coula~l:ls
$spect a large number OF ballots as
they were being prepared by voters.
1T is charged that these judges and
clerks were partisans of James V.
Trehv and that the returns were
fraudulent in that the returns show
ed 297 votes were received by Jas.
V. Trehy at the ssid precinct and 45
votes for Richard w. Peatross, when
only 29G votes were actually cast.
This charge, however, was diSproVeo
and abandoned by the contestants
It was. also charged that the
iudge of election at this precinct re-
mined outside of the room where the
other Judges were stationea for the
nurpose of fraudulently marking the
ballots and that this arrangement was
made pursuant to conspiracy entered
into bv the Judges and clerks OF the
nrecinct and James V. Trehy in order
10 carry the precinct for James
rrahy and! that voters on the outside
assisted the Judges in the perpetra-
+ion of this fraud and that all ballots
s., Illegally preparea pursuant to
this arrangement were marked 1oi
Trehy. This charge Of conspiracy was
abandoned by counsel for contestants
and . list of persons whose ballots
we're alleged to have been marked 2E
above set out. was filed with the COM
plaint. It was then charged that cer-
tain persons voted at the said pre-
c;nct who were not qualltiea to vote
other because of failure to register
or because of failure to pay thei1
,capitation tax. Z was then cnarge'
that other persons who were not II
the city were impersonated by other'
at the polls and voted ans that othe
persons voted more than once. Ihes'
charges were substantially repeated
as of the 9Th and sth precincts nu
were totally abandoned as OF the Oh
precinct, as there were no proofs U
substantiate any of them at that pre-
cinct.
1t developed during the progress o
the trial when ballots were produces
in court that d number, Of theni ha
not received the impression OF tn
electoral board seal, but on 'exanin
alton of the ballots at; a'gumbes O
precincts, several of which gave MA
iorities for PeatrossH snt several /:
which gave majorities Tor TrehS
showed That this faildre TO n}pres
the ballots with the ses1 was die I
the fact that the seal was badly wor
and it was attempted to inrrcss to
large a nt,nbet OF ballots at one TIM,
these in the middle receiving little ;
no impression. AS the case was fna
" argued, only three questions we1
passed in argument before 1hs coui
First. the absence Of the sea! OF
number Of Ballots. Second, @!eg'
syaud cn the part Of tie e!ectit
.