Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-10-23

The complaint states more than 600
alleged irregular, unlawful. false,
forged or fraudulent registrations were
placed on the registration books Of the
First precinct OF the Fifth ward.
The registration boards in the follow
Ing precincts were made party defend
ants, not because Of any personal actions.
but the statutes require the boards to
be party defendants when suits Of this
nature are instituted: First precinct Of
the Fifth ward, Second Of the Fifth,
Third of the Fifth, Fourth of the Fifth,
Fifth Of the Fifth, Eighth OF the Sixth,
Sixth of the First. Seventh OF the First,
Thirteenth Of. the First, Third of the
Third. Seventh Of the Third, Eighth of
the Third. Ninth Of the Third. Fourteenth
Of the Fourth. Fifteenth Of the Fourth
and County Auditor Leo K. FesIer.
The important charges of the suit af-
fecting the First precinct of the Fifth
ward, Is as follows:
IMPORTANT CHARGES
SET FORTH.
Relator further AYERS that OF said de-
PENDANTS, J. II. Lott was inspector, and
Martha Cook, Daniel " Donnell, Ed
ward Brown. Louis NJ Hubbard and
William q. Stehlin were clerks, and con-
stituted the registration board for the
First precinct Of the Fifth ward Of the
City OF indianapolis. in said county, and
were charged with the duty Of register
ing voters In said precinct upon applfca-
tioDs as aforesaid and making the afore-
said registration books or lists Of voters
for said precinct only as required and
provided by law and not otherwise.
That said board did accept a large
number of applications, purporting TO be
appHca tians OF voters for registration.
to qualify said applicants for voting at
said forthcoming election, which were
not made IN accordance with the law
but which were either irreg unlaw-
ful. false, forged or fraudulent. and In
direct violation OF the law, and did enter
them IN the registration books and lists
OF voters for said precinct in said elee-.
ton, to-wit: more than coo; that said
applications were, In many instances,
too numerous herein to set out NOT
signed by the persons purporting 70 be
the applicants when such purpOrted ap-
plicants were able to and could write
their names; that the same were signed
by another party writing the name OF
said purported applicant: that In many
instances said applications were undated
and blanks for Necessary information re-
Quired by law We're unified: that IN
many other instances other and fatal
defects appeared in said application, and
there are numerous duplicate registra-
tlons, all OF which relator offers to sub
stantiate By proof.
That on the. first registration day for
said Forthcoming election In 1920 held
on Sept. 1, 1920, said board received and
entered upon the registration books and
lists OF registered voters the names OF
about i've hundred persons whose appli-
cations were, as relator is informed and
believes, and on which informat ton and
BELIEF he charges the fact to be- irregu-
lar, unlawful, false and forged in this. to-
wit: That said applications were filed
out and signed by one Cora Warwick ii
violation Of law in this, that said person
in whose name said applications wero
made then and there could write their
own names; that said Cora Warwick was
employed by the Republican county com
mittee TO procure said registrations, and
the chairman of said committee an
nounced publicly in court and in the
newspapers that said applications were
unlawful, and that said voters would n@
re-registered at the forthcoming second
registration day to be, and which was,
held Oct 4, 1920; that relator is informed
and believes, and on such information
charges the fact TO be, that such voters
in many cases were not lawfully re-reg
istered, but that their names are still on
said registration books and lists sup
ported by said irregular, unlawful, false
and forged applications, and not other
wise.
And said relator further AYERS. against
the remaining said registration boards
named in the title of said cause and the
members thereof. that said boa rds were
charged with the duty of registering
voters in their respective precincts upon
applications in the manner herein before
averred; that said boards did In each of
their respective precinsts accept a large
number of applications OF voters for
registration to qualify said applicants
for voting at said forthcoming election
which were not made in accordance with
the law, but which were either irregular.
unlawful. false forged or fraudulent and
In direct violation Of the law. and did
enter them in the registration books and
lists of voters for said precinct in said
that said applications were. in many
instances too numerous herein to set out,
(Continued on Page Two.l