The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1922-09-08

Nrnr,'I mass tho r0tliil tl .NhaH W $780,
wynn ', n, u.s., man brnughl to trIa..
GA. nccr.cI If having ~'unlawfullv.
t,nurfnrl, aud rn~lon!0uslv caused Il
"aI,, rc,Hr, ~ u. made Of tn" results
30 ,ha vat. r,s, for = L. GiI!igan IN
I'rorinc, . In me Second ward" TrS-
,,n, ~. s-a;. WAS that Nail ma
{, " RrIlvnlc. = fellow clerk AT the
n,oc',c, win Nail aided Burlcy Th"mH-
g., .rh.,uu;iDy for actually voted
- .rr, ,.,p,b.r az ballots mltf-
20 " r,Io,I,r sla,e which they as
n" - ~ 49,, nro,iorsI, signed Bell
p"r' ',,t"a -, cvi1enr.
''"
MAIN r,,
Nail was found guilty. 'h't"Ps'"'
O'Rricu and CraEn wcr" Su"teIurh''H
tried. but none was conN'''e", N
TONS without end were ra,S'" u"'.hH
these trials. ChIct "I why" W." ha
right Of the state To Nu""'' - ~.
lots as testimony. inns va 10
the defense t" he a Nl"!"'''n - nm,
secrecy uf the ballot. an" Il lux w.
OF decisions was submitted IN shPi"''
of the contention. JudE" H'",
ruled. in the O'Rr'"n case "''''
ballots were admitted as 'N'"'''I' 49,
the Nail and Thompson raSrN' '""' =,
lhhlIplS - -
also refused TO u3n!Sh claude m'h'.r
for contempt OF court ""'" -.
stated that If placed on we S'"." -
refuse To testify. Tn" court nr!,
,bo. he could take no notion Nhi!i
nn,,r. royul,rly called aud sought 1"
,r,.a, =, r,kc the oath or
y" sworn r''"s"" '"
testify.
An effort was made. at III" ''i"'''
os IN, .nur, himself. to re, these Pc
81 ". ,m,s,imns settled by the state
,.aurt brouc the medium Of
n rrn cnur, refused 20 bear
''''l'''"'''" ,,aL,,,c ,h,i "rr-
IN" matter however, ""''''7 r,r,Is,
titled questions '""'" ''"' ''
only.
In the meantime the Nail cage ui'
been regularly appealed. and tn" "th"'
asses continued from time 10 IlHi''
I, his r~cmandIng opinion .ludG" Nd
dIcmau summed up the EXCEPTIONS |" '"'
r,,Iiwrs NJ .Iudrc Robinson as follows.
ru''nES o. ,nm,, .ha,r. of vruu,
w. hccr rroutcd; q. Cure.
,Tt,I,nn =. unrn.u and &. l.. Ogden
were incompetent jurors 'h'' -"
many nf m, witnesses as I" how they
,",,o, ,crc imurnurrly admitted in rvi-
,,," .a-..,n .rr,r.rus instructions
u'"''' 49,. .uI ,.cr,,,n u,.
were given Tor the S'"'' an" y
St"ucti"nS were rcJ''''' '"i ''S .r.
ant. the courts refusal to set aside the
,,rdir, mud gran, 4 new trial.
>'rH',' n"r, ~ lack nr jurisdiction. the
,irriir court held Was not we'll taken.
..b. I.frns. rllimcd thar he.ur Il mu-
niripnI election. stat" courts had no
|mr;rIJt,rinu As to he question al SUI
,Irnrv Of the Indictment. the our
xaiI liter reviewing at length the mai
,rr of defining the word 'rcturn': i
h,.. r,arhed the conclusion that tho
returns Of the election are thu" bal
lots. poll books, tally sheets ana ne
,.rtInrates. which the state cuntrnd"d.
rhai being true. Is II necessary for TIA"
ird,,, p,,ut Ia Ice more specific" | am
m,Iir.,I IN mink 90. am ~ the opiu-
. ~. iha, IN, indictment should specify
IL what particular the return is false
:"
c,,,ra NJ yenuo,
e"""- . ,u,o
nn which IN, court ruled error
had been committees NV .r'h,oI w. ~
from / state supreme count '''O q"
Fart as follows:
The cnhSt''ul'u" -r,d for y
accused OF. ana an"u' !" w nr, &"
crime "A Chdhsc VI ,r AND m. nc.
INK ~ so"u tI"Sc amJa,' rrnyrnp ~
cnSeu pc"tS nn n the rour, the exist.
,mco nf such good cause.
'''| .Tbn gond causr alleged may be con-
,rovcrted by the state Hhu we F"h
tion - one ." r nf ~" court, and II
SOUND uiS'.t,,u" 10 ~1reiudicIal 10 the
know that influences. ever
,hourh silent. may 80 permeatc a com,
munity as 10 maAe tn.'' Tnngcr IN.
on the Ju'S', az and impartial trial"
.,.rbc facts and circumstances shown