The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1922-11-23
Board Ordered to Court Next Monday to
Show Cause Why 1t Should Not be
Permanently EnjOined. sts5
MORRIS BARNETT DEMANDS OFFICE
Temporary Restraining Order Asks That Board Show
Why Certificate of Election Should Not
be Issued on Recount ~ sa.eaag

~ VIII leaVe the once OF district at
torney without a decision on the first
of January and under such circum-
stances the present district attorney
would continue to hold the Office until
his successor is elected and quail
lied" The court order is returnable
before Judge Belden in the circuit
court on next Monday morning at ten
O'Clock and it is rather formidable
looking document. The affidavit on
which it is issued is made. by Barnett
and it recites many facts in regard to
the election and the recount of the bal
lots. Some of the allegations made in
the affidavit appear to be important.
1t recites the fact that the election
was held on November 7th-that a re-
count of the vote was demanded at the
petition of Barnett and that both can
didates for the office were present at
every session of the canvassing board
when the recount was proceeding. 1t
alleges that Mr.. Symmonds filed his
petition following the announcement
by the board that the recount had
shown a majority of two votes for
Barnett
Says. Ballots Were Moved.
The most pertinent section of the
affidavit made by Barnett was the
declaration that after the election
board had recounted the ballots taken
from the linen bags that Candidate
Symmonds had taken certain of the
ballots from the table where the can
vassing board was at work to another
table in the same room for the purpose
of making copies of them. There is
no further comment on this feature of
the affidavit. Members of the can
wasting board admitted this morning
that copies had been made of contest
ed ballots but they did not admit that
these ballots had at any time passed
from the vision of the members Of
the board. No suggestion is made
that any of the ballots might have
been changed but the affidavit limits
itself to the statement of the fact that
they were taken from one table to an
other in the room during the continu-
ance of the recount. f3are
The affidavit goes on to state that
the amount proffered by the contend
ing candidate is inadequate to pay the
cost of the recount of the ballots and
that such a recount would be an un-e
warranted demand on the county treas
ury. 81 1f sc.t
Injunction is Temporary.
The injunction against the canvass
ing board issued by the court commis-t
sion is a temporary injunction and an
order to show cause why permanent
injunction should not be issued and
an order to show cause why under the
result of the recount of the ballots
the county clerk and the members of
the board should not issue a certif-
cate of election to Barnett. Judge
Belden must decide whether or not the
injunction is to be made permanent
after the hearing on next Monday and
if he decides in favor of the injunction
it is expected that an order to issue a
certificate of election will be issued.
With the issue of such an order it is
expected that Candidate Symmonds
will seek an injunction to prevent the
issuance of the certificate and that this
will further complicate the court fight
for the Office 1t can be said that mem
bers of the board welcomed the COM
ing of the temporary restraining or
der on account of the fact that it gives
them a chance to rest up before start
ing another search of the ballots.
Symmonds Gives Opinion.
County Clerk Holderness appealed
to the district attorney for an opin-
ion as to the right of the board to
proceed with a recount on Tuesday.
The district attorney declared that he
believed that the board has a perfect
right to proceed with such a recount.
The county clerk announced that he
would ask the county board to permit
him to employ legal services to ad-
wise him in the matter holding that
it would hardly be fair for him to take
advice from one of the contending
parties to an action which had now
reached the dignity of circuit court
hearing. Attorney Symmonds was not
in the city today and no statement
could be secured from him as to his
opinion of the injunctional proceed
ings which had put a stop to the re-