The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-10-21
sounded as if it was tearing apart. c. Did you say anything thon2 A, asked what was wrong,

v. Dio you eey anything thon2 A. I asked what was wrong.
 e. Didn't Leary on election day in the 18th district tell you that you were holding up the line of voterSp
 A. No.
 c. I mean Harry Leary, cus- todian of the machines?
 A. No.
 McNEaAon ousrled Closely
 General Moderator McMahon, un- der examination by Attorney Averill for the plaintiffs, was questioned closely about reports made from the Srd district where he acted as moderator.
 c. How do you explain that there were votes oi the 90 space on the machine in the 3rd district when there were only 20 candidates2
 4. That often happens in the heat Of an election count. They get cons fused and totals votes cast in the blank column.
 c. Shouldn't these votes represent tho total of ell ballots caSt2
 A. Possible.
 c. Then how do you explain . dis. crepAncy of eight votes between the total vote cast for mayor and the total vote of the 90 column7
 A. There might Do mistake made in checking or adding.
 The plaintiffs counsel sought to show that more votes had been cast for mayor than appeared In the 90 column, saying that this would show error in the checking ct the Srd dis- trict.
 Little Importance
 The court, however, seemed to at. tach little importance to what MT. Averill tried to develop, inaBmuch as most of 1t related to extrapeous matter in the present proceedings. The examination was designed to show that the moderator had failed to make certain reports required by statute and that . discrepancy ap. peared between meaningless vote for no candidates and the votes cast for actual candidates. It was brought out by the witness that thii frequently happens when the voters cut various candidates or. by 3ins proper operation of the lever, do not register votes through the ticket.
 With two days of hearings coFii- pieted on the writ Of nlandanius which is intended to force recan. vassing of the voting machines, pon. derots election records have been admitted as exhibits: more thar co election officials have been sub. . poenaed as witnesses by the Fusion counsel; allegations of discrepancies have been admitted by the defense , but these discrepancies in vote to. , taS in various districts have mol 1 pointed to any material difference between the machine and tally sheet ! totals; allegations of tampering witt . machines in two districts have no; . been proved but the result of suct ! tampering if occurred, has not beer shown as having bearing on election , results in either sides favor. Getting All Evidence
 Judge DickenSon has evinced 6 considerable interest in getting al of the evidence but has shown de. ctded tendency to keep counsel fol !, the plaintiffs to the matter before the court and has sustained objec. tons Of the defense when ex. traneouS matter, apparently intro. duced in search of the electior records for evidence in support oi allegations, has been pushed for. ward.
 As little is given by precedent fol the procedure in rlandamuS ac. tons of this sort, the WaterburJ case assumes an unusual aspect as ! legal controversy and scores of law. yers are in daily attendance. Gen. erally. 1t is felt that the machinel will fail to bear out allegations c discrepancies. charged by the plain. tiffs. But some attorneys hayI evolved Q question as to whether should such discrepancies be fount in quantity sufficient to chang' election results, the change nigh not result in election of the entir' ' Democratic ticket. sOEa0 members e , which were concededly 0eeeAked fol lowing the recount and announce ment' of the general moderator , official" figures. t