Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-10-28
the jurisdiction Of the court in tho mat

ter.
An of these questions are decided in
the affirmative, The matter of the eligi-
bility of Hartman, Is then taken up and
Judge Moll holds that II it can be shown
that he Is ineligible for office by reason
of any Gets committed by him, the writ
Of mandate sought by him will be denied.
The opinion then states:
"The proof In this case establishes that
the relator was guilty OF the violation
of the corrupt practice act set out In
subdivision 1 (a) of his fourth paragraph
of answer in that he brought and &C
companied Francis; alias Moore, a non
resident of Indiana, to the voting place
Of the precinct wherein relator resided
and knowingly voted and caused and
aided said On-resident to vote and that
said nonresident did so vote that the
preEOnderance of the evidence shows that
the relator violated the corrupt practice
act set out In subdivision L (b) In that
lie attempted illegally to vote in pre-
cinct other than the one in which he
resided; the preponderance of the evil
dence further shows that the relator
violated the corrupt practice act sat out
IN subdivision 1 (c) by unlawfully inter
fering with the election officials Of
precinct other than that Of his own
residence and demanded that persons rot
entitled to vote there according to their
announced determination to vote should
OS 10 NOLSt the pTepOnueTdnCe
OF the evidence fails to establish that
the relator was guilty of the. violation
OF the corrupt practice act set out IN
subdivision (a) and (b) and 2 (c)
consequently the relator is not to be held
responsible for any other illegal act
that the said Francis, alias Moore, may
have been guilty Of in connection with
the primary election, for while 1t Ia true
that a candidate Is not chargeable with
what his over Jealous partisan adherents
may do In violation of corrupt practice
acts or in contravention of other cleo
ito avs, he certainly is chargeable with
the legal results of his own personal
acts or those committed in his own pres
ence, or by his own immediate relatives
or associates, of whose conduct he may
reasonably be presumed to be aware, OF
OF his own confederates or subordinates
procured or accepted by him.
The few vt es affected by the violn-
lions found TO exist would probably not
have affected the net result, but having
been committed by the candidate him
self the quality of the act is to be Con
sidered and not simply the quantity in
huence. Quoting from a standard work
regarding the effect Of Irregularities Of
this nature Npon the result of an cleo
necessary to show that a majority Of the
voters were actually prevented from vot-
ing or voted against their wishes, by rea-
son thereof where the wrong Is fragrant
that 1t renders the result doubtful. There
is distinction between particular
Illegal votes the effect Of which may be
proven and exactly computed, and fraud
ulent combinations. coercion and indmi-
dalton. 1t can never be precisely est
mated how far the latter extends. Their
effect can not be automatically computed.
1t would be TO encourage such things as
cal contests to hold that they shall void
only to the extent that their influence
may be computed. So, wherever such
practices or influences are shown TO have
cases, but generally, so as to render the
result uncertain, the entire vote so af-
fected must be rejected
This Is especially true where the ir-
and particularly so when such Illegal
acts are chargeable TO the winning can
| didRte.
THAT there is no special privilege oil
| immunity in cases Of primary nomina'
! tons or election candidates. as to judges
! is evidenced by the fact that IN several
/ instances mandates were sought by judi
! cial 6spirants and were denied. IL fact
candidates are for obvious reasons pecu-
! Harry perntctOus."
Counsel on both sides rested shortly be-
fore o'clock last night and the court be-
gan reading his decision shortly after
! o'clock
/ MAN Last
| WITNESS ON STAND.
The last witness was Hartman himself
who took the stand, II is understood
| over the objection Of some OF his counsel
Hartman testified that he determined hC
had a right to vote on primary day In
| the Fifth precinct Of the Fifteenth ward
| because 1t was so indicated on q mar
which hung on a wall Of his Office He
! commended that the minute he was told
that he was in the wrong precinct, be
begged the pardon" OF the officials and
| lefe the polls.
| His most sweeping denial was that he
was accompanied to the voting place IN
| his own precinct, Ninth Of the Fifteenth
| ward. by Frank Francis the "confessin q
| burglar" In face Of proof introduced by
Mr. Wilmeth with the Introduction OF
! official records Of the primary to show
that Francis was given a ballot as q
registered voter from Hartman's home
at the same time Hareman appeared to
vote, Hartman emphatically denied that
Francis or Moore, as he contends hi
knew the burglar went with him to this
voting place. He admitted he rode around
/ in Francis automobile on primary day
State whether Frank Moore (Francis)
/ came to your polling place with you, tool
ballot and voted while you votedl" d.
rected Holmes,
! Hr. Hartman answered, He did not
! If he did, I did not see him. 1 know
! he wasn't with me-"
He also denied knowledge that he knew
the poll-books showed Francis was regis
tered from Hartman's own homo as g
| voter.
Hartman claimed he first met Moore
as he knew Francis IN February when
/ he I'D ~
asking Mrs. Moore to give him either
one or two small diamond rings to bc
held as surety for bail for a man who
was afraid be was going to be arrested
on a bootlegging charge. He admitted
| getting the rings but claimed he later
returned them to Moore and that Moore
| paid him $25.
| In discussing the whisky" evidence
! given by the nurse at Moore's homo al
the time Hartman obtained the rings
Hartman stated he saw two quarts Of