The Idaho recorder. [volume] (Salmon City, Idaho) 1886-1927, 1921-10-21
yIEL-SUMMERS CONTROVERSY
REVIEWED BY LAWYERS FOR
CONTESTANT.

ham counsel for contestant, in
the election contest case of Viel VS.. !
Summers, have prepared for the Su- |
preme court q long brief in the cele- !.
brated controversy, which is sought
to overturn the decision render |
ed early this year by Judge Adair !
In the district court. The long delay .
in prosecuting the appeal was occas-
toned by another delay in the office
OF the court reporter, but now that |;
the contestants part of the contro-
vsrsy is completed it cannot be much
longer held up from final decision by
the court of last resort in this state.
This is the first case, it is said,
wherein serious charges have been al !,
legged in Lemhi county elections, in
the declared results of which the vot-
ers have heretofore always cheerful
ly acquiesced.. It is said to the cred
it of the contestee in this action that
not the slightest question has ever
arisen as to his personal connivance
~ any wrong. count of the votes if
There were wrong count.
The Contestant's Statement.
At the November, election, 1929,
the tiff-appellant, hereinafter
called the contestee, and the defend
ant-appellee, hereinafter called the
contestee, were opposing candidates
for the office of county commissioner
cf the first commissioners district in
the county of Lemhi. BY the official
returns there were pose votes cast
for said Office for both contestant and
contestee, the said returns as can
vassed by the Board of County Com
missioners giving the contestant 1882
and the contestee 1867. In the Depot
precinct of said county the official re-
surns gave as voting for said office
FOG votes. giving to the contestant 76
votes and to the contestee 126 votes.
A certificate of election was granted
TO the contestee. Within the proper
time the contestant filed his complaint
contes.ing the election of the contes-
tee, and within thirty days from the
election filed his amendments to the
said complaint contesting the election
on the grounds that votes which were
cast for the contestant were not
counted for him, and votes that were
cast for the contestant were counted
for the contestee, more than suffic-
lent to change the result and to show
the election of the contestant,
and contestee respectively could
not be ascertained without counting
the votes in Junction, Depot and Iron
precincts and praying for a recount
of the ballots in those three precincts.
The contestant filed the bond requir-
ed by law and obtained an order for
the sheriff to procure the ballot boxes
in those three precincts. The contes-
tee demurred to the complaint which
VISA over-ruled, and the contestee ans
wered.
The evidence as to the ballots in the
Iron Creek precinct showed that the
ballots had been properly preserved
and the ballot box was opened, but
The returns, after being compared
with the ballots, were found to be cor
rect.
The evidence as to the ballots in
the Junction precinct showed that the
ballots had been properly placed in
the ballot box and locked, and left
in charge of w. A. Free, a deputy
sheriff, who placed the same in va
cant cell, in the County Jail at Lead
ole, locked the cell, and kept the Jail
locked until the 23rd day of Febru-
airy, 1921, when he turned them over
with the Jail to his successor, A. II.
Ford, present deputy sheriff. The
evidence showed conclusively tha. the
ballot box for the Junction precinct
had been safely kept, had not been
tampered with, and was in the same
condition as when locked on the night
Of the election in the presence of the
election judges and delivered to w.
A. Free, the deputy sheriff, by the
electionjudges. For the reason that
one of the judges of the election had
not the actual custody Of the ballot
box. the same was refused in evil
dence. The ballot box containeg the
ballots of Depot precinct were shown
to have been kept in the possession
of one of the election Judges, and the
key in the possession Of another, and
TO be in the same condition as when
the box was locked in the presence
OF the election officers and placed in
the possession of John c. Dryer, one
of the judges, and the key in the pos
session of 4. Il. Arbogast, another
one Of the judges for the precinct,
and was admitted in evidence and
showed that instead Of the contestant
receiving 16 votes as counted and re-
turned by the election officers In this
precinct, that he received f0a votes;
that the contestee, instead Of receiv-
ing i26 votes as counted and return
ed by the election officers, received
only 100 votes, making a gain of rs
votes for the contestant and loss
Of 26 votes for the contestee, and
showing the election OF the conteStan,
in the county by % votes
Much evidence was admitted over
the objections Of the contestant to
show that the election officers had
correctly counted the ballots. There
was absolutely no evidence introduced
showing that the ballots had been
tampered with. or single change
made in them after they were cast