Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1917-10-25
TOton Meeting Party
Sues Commissioners

Continued from Page One
ssvdr, ss,a mat he knew only twenty-six Of the
seNenty-seven signers '"e
Connor brought this 10 the .,,-.,
the court. "e attention OF
IL is not the sense OF the act ~ A.
sembly that an affiant must h.. . VI &c
person whose name appears ON tbo -
ni, lhatIOn sheet' said Judge Davis. 1T states
cleafly that the nomination sbau bo -,
II the five atlantis collectively Lno,,, al ,esal ga
fed electors" u oe quail
defense. '' ue''sn' py the
ro through rigid cross.examination of
James Randall Thomas Raeburn White
counsel for the Town NeetInv nar,,, 80
ueaNored to show that the Varesnitb ma
chlne had planted" Randall In Tho irJo
pendent organization in an atte,nnt 20 dis
souIi ,i,o lts candidates. Randall was one OF
NJ C,'iel witnesses In Common Pleas Court
NO 8 where the Wares have brought nro
Ceedlhgs TO attack the validity of siEnattires
10 tme nomination petitions of independent
candidates "
Mnen Randall who has figured in poli-
,lcs Tor many years was called TO the stand
,.s e"Ne MS occupation as a private in
NeSusator. lie admitted that no prepared
a petition for the nomination Of rovn
Meetlng candidates and asserted that IL
nau been given to him by the independents
70 take before notary when the petition
had the names Of only two atlantis
IN reply to questions of William Connor
counsel for the prosecution the witness
said he was told to take the petition 70
friendly notary but refused. He then
gave a detailed description of the Town
| Meeting headquarters which bordered on
rlulcule' The general attitude Of the wit
ness caused amazement.
Mr. White jumped TO his feet
n "a pt io
NAMED around the Town Meeting head
! quarters picking up information and selling
! it to the other side?" Randall denied
rather uneasily that he ever gave or sold
| information.
Pointing to Ware advisors in the court
| ROOM Mr.. White asked, Didn't you pick
| up information and sell It 20 those people ?"
Randall said that he did not and shufied
| from the stand
The Court will sit until Z O'Clock tonight
| and hold a night session tomorrow If neces-
| sary, so that the case may he concluded by
saturday ne told newspaper man as he
left the courtroom for lunch today
| This decision came as a result Of a state-
ment made in the courtroom by William p.
Connor, attorney for the Varc-S Smith ma
chine, to the effect that every one Of the
| $50 affiants in the case had been subpoenaed
and would be called to take the witness
| stand.
hAND"klIlNG ENPERT
William l.. Dennis, of Brooklyn. y. Y,
the handwriting expert. testified that the
| names on nomination paper No. rs from No.
| IL to %, inclusive, had all been written
| by one person and from the specimens Of
| Mr.. Dunns handwriting and his own sig
| nature on the back Of the paper It was
| his opinion that Mr. Dunn had written all
| the names The same opinion was ex-
| pressed by Aaron Rittenhouse Lewis, an
| other handwriting expert. of New York
| Thomas Raeburn White again expressed
| his willingness to have all the signatures
| alleged to have been forged by Dunn striCk-
| en- from the nomination paper, but Attorney
| Connor would not agree to this and insisted
| that the whole paper should be thrown out
| as invalid. Mr.. White took the stand that
| the legitimate signatures on the paper could
| not be invalidated because some of the other
| names were alleged to have been forged
| The matter was reserved for future argu-
| ment
| George Sterr. Jr.. of the Twenty-eighth
| Ward, who had given instructions for the
| obtaining of the signatures of voters to the
| nomination papers i'm that ward. was the
next witness called by Attorney Connor,
] but from Mr. Sterr's testimony and those
| who followed him there appeared to he little
| on which to base any criticism of this NOM
| ination paper Mr.. Sterr knew most of the
| names signed to the paper and he and
| Howard Klotz, David Pennock j. Dogole
and Augustus Lee were the affiants.
| Mr.. Sterr testified that the names to the
| petition were all legitimate and he and
| the other affants had been properly sworn
| before a notary public on Tuesday evening
| October 6. j. Dogol, one of the affiants
| however, who was examined after Mr.
| Sterr, could not remember any oath having
| been administered to him. but he explained
| that this was due 70 the hurry and excite
ment of having the papers prepared in time