The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1912-1984, 1915-05-25
MAY TERM CIRCUIT
COURT STARTS MONDAY
Judge Hardin Throws Out Indiet.
ments In Hustonville Election
Csses-Juries EmpsneIled

The may term of Lincoln circuit
court began here Monday and will
continue through three weeks. A
number of important cases are on the
docket and a busy session is assured
EmpsnelIiHg Of the grand and peti;
ljuries occupied the attention OF
Judge Hardin on Monday, and after
he had delivered his charge, court
was adjourned for the day and most
of the officials and lawyers went to
Lancaster where county court was on
taps.
The juries are composed of the fol-
lowing well known citizens:
Grand Jury-N. II. Bishop, fore
man, J. c. Florence, S. J. Embry,
Jr., Sherman Coy, J. B. Jones. G.. T.
Gooch, NJ. V. Keeton, J. F. Holman,
r. Y. Ballard, p. l.. Beck, j. T. Rob-
erts and W. J. Kenny.
Petit Jury-Wilson Alexander. 3.
+. McMullin, X. +. Gaines, John L.
Beck, Jay Howenstein, A. A. Nc
Roberts. o. p. Huffman, w. d. Walls.
p. V. Carson, W. +. Dishon, NJ. F.
Lawrence, j. W. Holtzclaw, G.. NJ.
smith. j. NJ. Carter, >om Gooch, W.
II. Peoples, W. NJ. Mosier. S. p. Shoop
NJ. 7. Morgan, Owsley Dunn, J. l..
Livingston, Hayden McMullin, A. c.
Sine, and Charles McGuffey.
Two judgments were taken on the
hrst day of court, one against John
Waddle and one against George
Washington, FOR SIC each and small
offenses.
On Tuesday Judge Hardin took up
the indictments against +. V. Car
son and T. j. Bell. of Hustonville.
who were charged with preventing le-
gal voters from participating in the
last democratic senatorial primary.
About 80 or 40 democrats were pre-
vented from voting at Hustonville. |
Attorneys X S. Alcorn and George
ID. Florence, of Stanford and Charles |
+. Montgomery, of Liberty, appeared
for the defendants. County Attorney
W. s. Burch declined to assist in pros |
ecution of the case, stating to the
court that previous to the election
ne had advised with certain election
officers in regard to this very matter
not these defendants, however
and according to the way he con-
'trued the law, he did not believe
they had committed any offense.
Attorneys for the defendants filed |
demurrer to the petitions, alleging
mat the indictments were defective i'm
that thy did not set forth that the
officers of election had knowingly vio-
lated the law in refusing to permit
certain men to vote. They cited au-
IN 81 h.t h..
held that such an otfense must have
been knowingly committed, and be
'et forth in the indictment.
Commonwealth Attorney Puryear
net this argument with the declara-
ion that the indictment set forth
hat the officers of election mentioned 1
lad "corruptly" performed the acts
of, and that it was impos-
ible to do an act corruptly without
carrying knowledge with it and
hat the failure of the indictment to
ct out that the alleged offense had ,
een knowingly done, did not invali- I
late it for the reason that such an
ct performed corruptly could be con- {
trued in no other way than having |
een done with full knowledge of the
L
Judge Hardin held that there must !
e an allegation in the indictment 4,
hat the facts set up in the indict-
lent would constitute the voter a le- |
al voter, must have been alleged to
ave been known to the defendant by
direct allegation as had been held in
rinciple in many cases by the Court
{ Appeals and that he was compelled !
nder the law so to hold.
1t is understood that the matter
ill be carried to the Court of APP ,
eals for a final construction of the !
oints involved