Year: 1866

votes, with the army vote cast out of the com
putation.


Ii he can successfully attack any considerable
number of votes cast for David z. Weaver, 80 as
to approach his apparent majority, based on our
view OF the army vote, we will then open che
door for an examination into the charges OF
misconduct OF the election officers. But, before
doing this we think that direct and palpable
fraud should first be met with evidence of spe-
clhc fraud, as to the individual voters charged
by him as having voted at the last election for the
contestant, exceeding eleven hundred in number.
II this cannot be done, we OF the opinion that
evidence should not, in O case like to this
one, be allowed to be gone into Wi5h the view
of establishing certain general allegations, from
which we are 10 be asked to infer frand and
upon which the entire vote OF our election divi-
sons are to be thrown OUT of the return, and
this involving, as necessary consequence, the
dislranchlsement OF all the honest voters of
these election divlsions-a consequence which
may be the necessary result OF the rule, which
we clearly recognize as well grounded upon
reason and upon authority, and OF wholesome
policy, when proper case arises Tor its appica-
Son, but which We do not feel ourselves called
on TO enforce at this time, nor at all in this case,
unless the character and amount OF evidence
which we have indicated shall first be submitted.


10 this order OF proof we will rigldly aihere
IN the xamlnation OF the incumbonts testimony,
and with this emphatic enumeration of ths
course which we have determined to pursue IN
the further nve e'tlgation of the cause, we Will
be ready at an early day to begin the hearing,
with view to speed IL to prompt decision.


Thee is one question which yet remains to
be considered, and which may Lriehy oe dis
posed OF.


The majority of the electors of the Sixth,
Seventh, and Eighth Divisions of the Fourth
Ward aud of the Fourth Division Of the Twenty
fifth Ward, are charged with having traudulently
divided their vote, at the elect on in October,
1864, for inspectors OF election, so as to elect
two OF their own number representing their
own political views, with the design to deprive
the minority OF the right to have an inspector
at tue following election.


We have been unable to find in the law which
empowers this Court to take jurisdiction of
complaint of an undue election, and false
return, any authority to inquire INTO tue truth
or ialsity of such charge as this. 1t is no part
of the election, the legality of which is ques-
toned by the complaint. If it should be shown
to be true that the voters did YEAR before do
that which is violation OF the spirit and intent
of the law, it cannot, we think, be embraced in
this investigation, lor the reason assigned that


II is 10 part OF the e,ecton and return to which
the charge OF fraud under the law can be made


to apply.


But this point was decided in Manns case; the
reason there assigned WAS that il such election
be fraudulent its validity cannot be examined in
collateral proceeding, and that an election of
inspectors OF election cannot virtually be nulli-
fed, and set aside in such proceeding as this.
This allegation, which is contained In the ninth,
tenth, eleventh, and twelfth specifications, must,
therefore, be stricken from each OF them, as no
evidence could be received upon This point.


With this exception the answer OF tne lncum-
bent stands as a valid and proper answer, and
the motion to quash is therefore overruled.
Court OF QUARTER SEssIoNs-Judge Ludlow
George Clark was acquitted of charge OF the


larceny OF 500 preferred by his cousin, j. Bowes.
Henry Woods was charged with stealing a


horse and wagon the property of John Sellers.
William Harman testified that the defendant, O
| short time after the larceny OF the horse and
| wagon, sold the wagon to him. Subsequently
| Mr. Sellers, OF West Philadelphia, from whose
| stable the property was stolen, identified the
| wagon as his. The horse was found in Eighth
| street, wandering about loose.
The defense was that the defendant had come
| by the wagon honestly, it having been brought
| to a stable III his neighborhood by man named
| Anderson and another. Anderson, it was fur


ther alleged, had fled the jurisdiction of the
court, and was not to be found, and that he was
| the real criminal.


! The length OF time that had elapsed from the
| time of the LARGELY, viz, August l8 to December
| 49, when the property was known to have been
| in the possession of the defendant, was urged
| in his favor, as rebutting the rule that he was


bound to account for the manner OF his becom
| ing possessed OF it.


The jury acquitted on the charge of larceny,


but found defendant guilty of receiving the pro
| perty knowing it to have been stolen.