St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1917-10-20
JURY BRINGS IN
VERDICT FOR
LACROIX in
CONTEST
CONTINUED from page -

(COnt1uueQ from page ~
PENDANTS counsel was first to sug-
ges that Mr.. Gardner be permitted to
vote without retiring to polling booth
and all parties, including plaintiff
and defendant, agreed that this be
done.
G. H. Betterly's vote for Aubert
was declared by defendant to be IL
legal because commissioners failed
to tear off the perforated slip at
bottom of ticket bearing number of
ballot. Plaintiff commended commits
sioners should have done this and in
failing to do so did not perform their
duty.
The case was long and tedious,
full of technicalities and c0nstruc-
tions of law. Such a case as would
have taxed the legal learning of al
most any lawyer. It was not ex-
pected by any one that the jury
would Ue able to grasp all the points
or memorize the volume OF "testi-
mony. The general impression SEEM
ed to be that there would be mis-
Plaintiff maintained that the vote
of Jas. J. Ezell was illegal because
he was on the day of election con-
fined in the parish Jail awaiting trial
for murder, and under the law not
entitled to vote. Ezeu had made
sworn statement before Judge-R0bt.
Bad0n that he voted for Lacroix.
He was taken from his cell on cleo
ton day by deputy sheriff to the
polling booth. where he cast his
ballot. Defendant counsel argued
before the jury that he was moo
guilty until he was convicted.
Defendant asked that the votes OF
Josh Gains and Fred Combel be can
celed on the ground of nonresidence,
and that the votes Of Jno. H. Gard
ner, since deceased, and H. H. Smith
be cancelled because they were ex-
posed to view. Mr.. Smith swore ON
the stand that he had not exposed
his ticket. Mr.. Gardner was taken to
polling place and was carried up the
steps of the courthouse. When he
voted, it is stated, heads were turn
ed away so as not to witness the
voting, in order that Mr.. Gardner
might not he compelled in his weak
ened condition to go into the booth
and make out his ticket All these
matters went to the jury. 1t was
put in testimony that one of de-
trial, until Mr.. Schwartz, counsel for
defense. was seen to call Judge Reid
| into the consulting room, and on
their return the Judge addict to his
instructions to the jury the charge
that they might il they saw fit bring
in verdict referring the matter to
the voters by ordering another cleo
ton. 1t was thought that this was
the result of the conference, and that
the jury would jump at it as the
best way out of the dilemma, but
Judge Reid took exceptions to the
charge.
Judge Reid asked tine jury to
bring in verdict against the plain
tiff, If they could not decide in favor
of him. 1t was evident Judge Reid
did not desire a mistrial, as that
would not only prevent an appeal
being taken, but would involve heavy
expense of retrial, with the chance
of repetition of the mis-trial. He
evfdently favored an appeal
Judge Carter charged the jury in
the usual form of charges where the
jury is Judge of the law and the
fact, viz: II you find that the vote
was legally cast for, ETC., or il you
find that the vote was illegally for
| atc then # Ia vnuP f111fv ofc
Counsel on both sides made able
and strong fights, and theargumenta
took up considerable time. Ere
quent exceptions were taken by
counsel on both sides.
The case will be appealed. Per-
haps the Court Of Appeals or the