The Sentinel=record., 1914-01-21

the subject was the evf0cnce of Bell | himself and of A. T. Davies.
 Bell had been introduced as a wit | ness by the petitioners. The vague ness and the uncertainty of his testi | mony had to be taken into consider | atio. He could not state positively | as to any material fact in issue. His | idea seemed to be that he was not | sworn as to the truth of the affidavit, ! but the court was forced to take a | deduction on this point, since the wit | ness would not swear positively on the point.
 Bell was further unable to swear positively whether the signatures were obtained in his presence, as re quired by the statute, or by the par ties themselves, as required by The statute. He would not deny whether he had obtained the names of certain ladies to the petition by telling .hem that the petitions were for the SUD- pression of wine rooms for ladies.
 The evidence the court stated. a.
 
 @ serious doubt as to the petitioners being secured to sign The petitions as provided by law Judge Mooney stat ed that he believed the witness was sworn to the affidavit and properly sworn. But the witness was strange ly unable to remember whether he had been or not The court did not doubt the evidence of Attorney A. T. Davies, as to the petitions he had sworn Bell to. but Bells evidence was an affidavit, not swearing that he had made one. or that he had not.
 "It is deplorable" said Judge Moon ey, that in a matter of such import ance as this the transactions should be trusted to the hands of a man who showed such a lack of diligence as this witness showed"
 "I will rule that all the petitions with Bells signature attached are suppressed"
 Attorney Sawyer of counsel for the petitioners asked that his side be given further time to present author ities on the question of suppressing the other petitions.
 How long do you want" inquired Judge Sumpter '"They have made other arguments and offered their au- thorities and the court is ready 10 rule If the other side presents fur ther authorities, I will ask also the privilege of offering others, and of making the close of this argument"
 Attorneys Sawyer and Wilmington | argued the point not ruled on MT. | Sawyer took the view that the law | was useless in some of its provisions, | and that the court would hardly | throw out the petition of 4,100 citi- zens because some useless require ment was exacted by the statutes.
 Attorney Wilmington took the point the jurats had been sufficiently at- tested to. and that the supreme court decisions did not indicate that a per son in making an affidavit had to do more than approve that part, q do solemnly swear" which gives to both parties the assurance that the act is in the nature of an oath, with all -ts attendant responsibilities. He believ- ed that the petitions as they had been presented in court, were sufficient and that there was nothing further for the court to consider and asked that they be held as having been sufficient ly made.
 In his argument MT. Wilmington laid stress on the point that petitions should not be suppressed because some one signature might not have been properly placed on a petition, but that the court might order remOv- ed such individual signatures as seem ed improper.
 Judge Sumpter asked the court 10 rule out petition No. 95, circulated ny NJ. A. Eisele, on the admission of op- posing counsel Mir Wilmington hay ing stated that if the names were gen. uine and if the parties who could not write had their names witnessed by 1 two persons, the petitions should stand.
 MT. Sumpter based his request for petition No. 95 to be thrown out on he fact That three members of one family had their names signed by one of the family, and he urged that as this was not in conformity with the statute, this petition should De thrown out.
 Judge Mooney ruled that he would not suppress this petition
 Attorney Mcconnell then made an argument for the motion to suppress. He said that the burden of the proof ' hat the petitions were genuine had {. been on the petitioners, but that later the petitions were delivered into the court as prima facie evidence. That meant that they were delivered to the court to be accepted as true facts On their faces. Then the court had ] shifted the burden of the proof to the out not on the evi- dence. Then when the question had been raised that the petitions were and were not correct as