The Sentinel=record., 1914-05-07
MAKE ARGUMENT ON.
 MOTION ID QUASH
CIRCUIT JUDGE GOTHAM HEARS LAWYERS AT LENGTHY SES-
 SION HELD LAST NIGHT.
On the Action of This Motion Will Hinge Much of the Future of the Appeal From County Court.

Lengthy arguments on a motion to suppress many of the petitions filed in behalf of the issuance oi license in this city for iue operation of sa- looms occupied the attention Of Cir cult Judge Gotham last night in a lengthy session in which the court indulged much patience to the situa- tiOn.
 The motion to suppress was filed by Judge 0. II. Sumpter for the re- monstrants, who asked that all the petitions bearing the iurat of W. II. Vale be suppressed, that all petitions with non-residents be suppressed, that all petitions circulated by those who had not appeared as witnesses be suppressed, and that the petitions of w. D. Beal and C. k. May De SUD- pressed, and those whose jurat had been placed by Davies, and that all the petitions then be suppressed be- cause they were insufficient to the end.
 In the end Judge Sumpter claimed that the jurat of Vale was false, that it had been testified to as such by some of the witnesses, and that where fraud was shown in one in- stance all the acts of that individual should be viewed with suspicion by the court. He claimed that particu- larly in the iurat of the w. B. Beal , neither signed or swore to, but which Vale had attested, was there fraud shown.
 Attorney Davies interrupted to argue that if the affidayits were inn properly made in any instance they could be remedied yet, but Judge Sumpter insisted that the Going act required the act to be performed rightly before the petitions were filed. He urged that any reckless disregard of the rules and require ments of the eXactions of the Going act were sufficient to be regarded as or equal to fraud
 Attorney Davies insisted that the rule is that the petitions were as election returns, and they must stand as the returns unless proved worth less as evidence of truth and that uhe burden of the proof was with the rcmoustTants. lie said the 9election judges had not been required to know the voters. The signatures, he argued, which had been made by one person for another, in his presence, were equal to the signature of the principal, and therefore not subject to question. He said that the peti- tioners did not allege they had 5l per cent of the white adult inhabi- tants, but that was a question for the court to determine, and not alleging such fact, the burden of proving it was not true, was with the remon. strants. He declared that to him there was no proper issue raised i4 the proceedings.
 Judge Farmer, for the petitioners, believed the only question for the circuit court to determine was if the county court abused it's discretion in granting the license. He said that only a very few had testified they had not been sworn in a full and complete manner, and they might have been properly sworn and for gotten the facts, not understanding the nature of an oath in such pro- ceeding.
 Judge Huff argued that the Going act had been complied with by the petitioners. He said if fraud had been shown in individual signatures the proof of it would only apply to them, and not to the petitions on which they appeared. He thought there was no fraud specifically al- leged therefore none had been shown, and that generalities should not be considered. He also referred