xt70zp3vt865_162 https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/mets.xml https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt70zp3vt865/data/63m46.dao.xml unknown 18601954 14 Cubic Feet 31 boxes archival material 63m46 English University of Kentucky Copyright has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Harkins Family papers Mineral rights -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Law reports, digests, etc. -- Kentucky. Mining leases -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Practice of law -- Kentucky. Bankers -- Kentucky. Banks and banking -- Kentucky -- Prestonsburg. Coal trade -- Kentucky -- Floyd County -- History. Lawyers -- Kentucky. Branham, Jack v. Bailey, Harold et al. [Part I] text Branham, Jack v. Bailey, Harold et al. [Part I] 2016 1936 1935-1936 section false xt70zp3vt865_162 xt70zp3vt865 O ' V ,.
FLOYD CIRCUIT CAT‘URT
3&8? BfitHPfix PIAXWTIFF
VS 2 ARSWPRa COTWTERCthfi AIR

{ (TEQ‘UNTEEE 03mm: or common

OF TI—L’é‘: T:TELE?E’:IE1‘2.€RE~IT§, HAROLLIE

A? WIN??? A}??? CITY C‘RILD‘EPSE-

. KAROLZTJ 2‘3"- ILETY} ETC- 9 ._, “.NT“

The defendants: herald Bailey and Guy Childerou for
answer to the petition and for counterclaim and counter ground
of contest against the plaintiff, Jack Branhom, deny that the
plaintiff is over the age of twenty—four years. Deny that he
has been or 13 a citizen or resident of Floyd Countyg Kentucky,
for more than three or any number of years next oreoefiiog the
Eovember election, 1955, or that he is a qualified voter within
Floyd County, Kentuckyg deny that he has completed at least the
eighth grade or any of the grades in the common schools of the
State of Footucky. Deny that plaintiff does not halo or disw
charge the duties of any civil or political office, aepotyship
or agency of Floyd County, Kentucky. Deny that plaintiff 3oe«

, access all or any of the statutory or oonetitotional qualifica-
tions for members of the Board of Education of Floyd County,
Kentucky. Deny that heretofore or not more than sixty days nor

V — l b ‘
/ I . ‘ ~ ' t; - ._.. .. \

 loss than fifteen days,or at all; next before the fiovembor olec»
tiong 19353 there was filod'with the County Clerk of Floyd County
Kentueky a petition in writing in behalf of the plaintiff herein
to have the name of the glaiotiff printed upon the school ballots
as a candidate for member of the Board of Education of Floyd
County, Kentucky. Tony that eoifl alleged petition was oigoed
‘ by not less thou one hundfed legal voters of filoyo Countyg Eonw
tacky9 qualified to vote therein and they deny thafi the alleged
petition showed the place of roeidenee of each or may of the
persons alleged to have Signed the same; they deny that pursuant
thereto or oi all the Home of the glaintiff herein was printed V
noon the official school bollote of Floyd County for the office
of member of the Board of Education of Floyd COUnty, Bemtucky, '
to be voted for at the Kovombor election, 1935.
yefendante deny that as counted, tabulated or oerti«
fied by the Board of Election Commieeionero of Floyd County,
Kentucky, the following number of votes were cost in said eleoa
tion in the divere precincts of Floyd County for the oivers
candidates for the office of member of the Board of Education
of Floyd County, Kentucky, as follows:
Guy Harold Jack W. W. (Bill)
Childers Bailey Branhnm Cooley,
Prestonsburg, 45 36 39 33
Preetoneburg, 2, G 0 O 0
Depot, 51 38 35 42
Auxier, 169 155 1&0 ' 160
Middle Creek, 76 80 59 73
Spurlook 79 74 72 74
Porter 78 64 114 105
Johns Creek, 75 58 152 144
Cow, 88 86 192 177
Mouth of Beaver 189 1?5 W0 77
Jim Banks 192 187 114 115
John Possum, 126 107 101 104
Holbert 55 47 175 180
V - 9 -

 O 0
Guy Harold Jack (13111)
Childers Bailey Branham. Cnoleyy
mouth of End 148 137 153 148
Little Eud 102 93 68 57
Tickey 154 151 55 46
Betgy Layne l8? 154 288 243
flntioch 116 100 147 151
Elder Hiram 257 267 206 208
Painter Harve 16 14 2 3
Clear Greek 143 159 27 32
John int 400 579 143 144
Bosco 160 139 96 134
Garrett 467 509 187 21?
Wayland 159 162 478 534
Abbott 165 157 109 115
Little Paint 65 40 112 114
Rough and Tnugh 184 74 77 78
Cliff 99 92 61 66
Dwale 6O 55 61 60
Tolers Creek 22 20 12 12
antown 120 111 141 216
Lackey 138 135 185 136
Ivel 108 101 120 96
Jacks Creek 7 2 74 75
Drift 157 145 107 102
F em: edy 1"; ‘5 553 80 83
Burton - - - -
Ligon 155 146 14 16
Melvin 77 75 101 86
Martin 170 129 97 99
Arkansas 78 69 66 69
Kiser 48 41 62 39
Lee Alley 175 173 l 1
Estill 105 103 210 225
Northern 79 57 46 107
Prater 119 108 86 "wjfifl
5597 5260 4920 5108

Defendants deny that said alleged count, tabulation or

certification of said ballets on the part of aaid Board of Elec—
. tion Commissioners of Floyd Comaty, Kentucky, was or is untrue
or erroneous fer the reasons set out in said petition or at all,
but defendants admit that such count, tabulation and certifica—
tion are untrue and erroneeus in so far as they conflict with the
Judgment of this court in a recount proceeding instituted by the
plaintiff hergin and said W. W. Cooley against these answering
- 3 -

 0 a
defendants which judgment will he hereinafter got out. Defendants
deny that the plaintiff herein received a larger number of the
legal votes cast in said election than did the defendants, Guy
Childcrs or fiorold Bailey, or either of them, or a majority of
the legal votes coot in said school election held on November
5, 1955, and they deny that they or either of them did not re-
ceive a magority of the legal votoo cast in said election, afore—
said.

The defendants deny that heretofore or on or about the ;
".“- day of fictobor, 1955, or on a day which was not more than
fifteen nor less than ten days before the said Eovombcr elec-
tion, 1955, plaintiff filed with the Clerk of the Floyd County _
Court or with the Chairman of the Board of Election Commiooioners
of Floyd County, Kentucky, a pro—election statement of expenses
incurred by him in securing said election or of contributions
received by him toward securing said election, to or including
the date of filing of said pro-election statement. They deny
that saio alleged statement was in writing or woo signed or
sworn to by plaintiff. They deny that the plaintiff after said
election or at all duly filed with the officers provided by law
his post election statementg They deny that the plaintiff did
not violate any of the provisions of sections lasso—1 to section
1565bn21, inclusive, of the Kentucky Statutes, designated as the
Corrupt Practice Act. They deny that no one violated the pro-
visions in said act for the plaintiff with his knowledge and con-
‘ sent. Deny that defendants, Guy Childers or Harold Bailey, or
either of them or others for or on their or either of their be-
half, or with their or eithrr of their knowledge, consent or
approval unlawfully, illegally or without right knowingly or
- 4 -

 0 e
intentionally or at all violated the said Corrupt Practice Act
by providing a fund of several thousand dollars,or at least ten
thousand dollars or any amount of money, or which said alleged -
fund was unlawfully or illegally or knowingly or at all used for
the purpose of bribing of voters to vote unlawfully or illegally
for or on behalf of the defendants, Harold Bailey or Guy Childers,
or either of them or against the plaintiff herein, or at all; or
that by reason thereof or at all the election of said Harold Bailey
or Guy Childers, if the court should be of the opinion that each
or either of them was otherwise elected was or is null or void.
Deny that by reason of the defendants, Guy Childers or Harold
Bailey, or either of them, having violated the provisions of the
said Corrupt Practice Act, which is not admitted, but expressly
denied, or the some having been violated by others in their or
either of their behalf, which is denied, or with the knowledge
I or consent of the said Guy Childers or Harold Bailey, or either
of them, which is denied, or that the plaintiff received a majori—
ty of the legal votes cast or in'hnving violated the provisions
of said Act was or is entitled to be declared elected to said
office, or that the plaintiff is entitled to be declared elected
to said office for any other reason.

The defendants deny that Town Hall was the manager of
the campaign for said defendants, Guy Childers or Harold Bailey,
or was in active charge of the Campaign for the said Bailey or

' Childers or either of them; deny that as a matter of foot, or at
all, or while on the face of the record and of the election a
question to be decided at said election was the election of two
members of the Board of Education of Floyd County, Kentucky, for
which offices the said Bailey and Childers were candidates in

- 5 c

 O O
truth or in fact it was an election which would aetermine who I
would be elected to or hold the office of Superintendent of
fichoole of Floyd County, Pentucky, or that the sale Town Hall
wee or is an aspirant to such poeition. That the said Town
Hall is not in Floyd County, Kentucky, but is and was studying
law at the Mfiivereity of Bentucky, in Lexington, ?entuc%y; deny
that the said @own Hell with the knowledge, authority, acquies—
cence or consent of the said Guy Childere or Harald Bailey, or
i either 0f them er at all breached or violated the terms, pre—
vieiene er stipulations of the Corrupt Practice Act ifl that the
said Town Hall, who had charge of the management of the candin
dacy of the eeia Reiley or Childers or either of thexg which
ie denied? failed, refaeed or neglected to make out or file a
prevaleotien expense statement as required by eaid Actg or that
by reason sf which allegea failure, which is éenied, the said
Eailey or Childere have forfeited the right to the certificate
' of election for said officee of members of the Board of Educa-
tien of Floyd County, Kentucky9'or to Qualify for said office
as aforesaid.

The defendants deny that in each or any of the
yrecincte 0f ?loyd County9 Kentucky, hereinafter set out, there
were cast for or on behalf of the defendants, Guy Childere or
Herold Bailey, the follewing or euy number of illegal votes,
tauwit:

6

 O 0
333-3293 Elem-fleeie.eat. 33.21 ngotes
Mo. 19Prestonsburg, 15 10 V 15
5, Depot 15 10 15
49 Auxierg 50 15 50
5, Middle Creek 50 10 50
6. Spurlook 50 10 50
V; fiorter 25 5 25
89 Johns Creek 25 5 25
99 Cow. 80 5 80
10, mouth of Beaver 100 10 100
119 Jim Banks 100 10 100
12. John Possum 50 5 5O
15. Holhert 15 5 15
14. youth of Nod 75 10 75
15. Little had 75 10 75
16, Tickey 100 15 100
17, Betsy Layne 50 10 50
18s Antioch 50 10 50
1%. Elder Hiram 150 25 150
20, Painter Herve 10 5 . 10
21. Clear Creek 100 10 100
22, John Ant, 500 25 500
255 30500 60 10 60
- 24, Garrett 200 25 200
25. Wayland 50 10 5O -
26, Abbott 60 10 60
279 Little Paint 20 5 20
28, Rough & Tough 50 10 50
29. Cliff. 25 5 25
509 Dwale, 50 5 50
313 Tolere Creek 10 5 10
52, 15‘f3ytOK'iPi’l 25 5 25
559 Lackey 35 5 55
54, Ivel 40 5 4O
35, Brift, 100 10 100
57. Kenneéy, 25 10 25
59 Ligon 100 10 100
40, Nelvin 5O 10 5O
41, Jartin 100 10 100
42, Arkansas 25 5 25
43, Riser 25 5 25
44, Lee Alley, 160 10 160
459 Estill, 50 5 50
46, Northern 25 5 25
47, Frater, 50 10 50
For answer to paragraph 5 of plaintiff‘s petition,
defendants deny that plaintiff afiopts or makes a part hereof or
as fully or as all as if written at length in worde or figures
herein all or any of the averments or allegations of paragraph
4 as to the number of alleged illegal voters in the divers or
any precincts of Floyd County, Kentucky, at said election on
November 5th, 1955; deny that in each or any of the precincts
_ 7 l

 0 o
of Eloyd County, Kentuoky, fififltiflLfid or set out in wavngrsrh
e of yinintiiizs petition, the number oi voters under the oolurm
heeded or denominated ”Bribcd” were unlawfully, illegxilyrfrendu-
lently or csrruntly or at all bribed to vote ¢or or in pursuance
tn gwid fillegsd bribery did vote for the defendants, Herold
heilsy or any fihildersg the number of such currented or bribed
votes in emeh of said nrecinots felloning the number er any of
shin oresinnts respectively. fishy that such or any of 3316 his
leged bribeé or corruyted votes; as aforesaidg'uure ingesited
in the ballot boxes of said resyective yresiusts 3? were counted
fer or tabulated for the defendants, hernia Bailey er fuy thlde
‘ ers. or as to make u? the number of rates counted or tabulated
by the Learn of Aleutian Cormuesiogers for Sligd Couutfa or
certifiefl by Enid Scnrd of Election Commissionirs to hire been
reeeived by the said defendantsg herold bailey or flay Childers.
Far further answer to yarnmreph E of pluintififis
petition, defendants deny that plaintiff adopts or mvkee a sort
hereof or as fin 1y or at all as ii written at length in nerds
_ or figures herein. all 0r any oi the avelnents or allegations of
paragraeh 4 ms to the number of alleged 1 legal votes in the
divers or any precincts of Eloyé County, Kentuchy, at said
election on Lovember 5th, 1935; deny that in each or any of the
precincts of filoyd Gounty, Kentucky, mentisned or set out in
paragraph e of bleintiff’s notition, the number or on: number
of voters under the column headed or denominated "nonwreeieent"
were unlawfully, illegally 0r witheut right permitted Zy‘the
election officers of the divers precincts, respectively, or at
all, to vote in said election for members of the board of Times-
tion when each or any of said voters, respectively or at all,
had not resided in the State of Kentucky for at least one year
- 8 i

 O 0
prior to the date of said election or 13 Floyd Coucty for at
least six months prior to the oete of said election, or within
the respective yrecincte for at least sixty days prior to the
date of said electiongor that each or any of said oereons voted
for the defendants, Herold Bailey or Guy Childere or that the
veeid alleged votes or ballots or each of said voters or any of
them were flepoeiteo in the ballot boxeo.ot eoid orecincte, re—
s;ectively, or at all9 or were counted for or tabulated for the
defendento, Kerold Bailey or Guy Childers,or that said alleged
votee go to make no the total number of votes tabulated for or
counted for the said defendants by the Board of Election Com“
misoioneres or certified by the said Board of Election Commis-
sioners to have been received by the defeedaote; fiarolfi Bailey
or Guy Childeros
The defendants deny that in Depot Precinct9 En, 3, -
_ Sambo Eeleoo was one of the Judges of the election or that in
said precinct there were thirty or more or any number of ballots
voted for the defendants, Harold Bailey or Guy Childers, or
twelve or any number of ballots voted for the defendant, Guy
Childere, alone; or six or any other number of ballots voted for
the defendantg Karold Bailey, alone, or at all, which were not
signed by the said Sambo Nelson. Deny that such alleged ballots
were signed by some person or persons unknown to the olointiff
or which ballots were deposited in the ballot box of said pre—
cinct or were tabulated or counted for the defendants, Herold
Bailey or Guy Childers, or go to make up the number of votes
counted or tabulated by the Board of Election Commissioners of
Floyd County, Kentucky, or that they were certified by said Board
- 9 -

 O o
of Election Sonmissioners to have been received by the said
defendants, Eareld Bailey and Guy Childere, or that said ballots
should be deducted from the number of votes in said precinct,
tabulated, and counted for said defendants. Defendants admit that
they received the number of votes hereinafter set out as shown by
the judgment in said recount ppooeeding and they allege that all
the ballots east, tabulated and certified and appearing in said
judgment weie signed by the said Samba Eelson as Judge of the
election or by some other person or persons in his presence, at
his direction and with his knowledge, authority, acquiescence and
consent. The defendants admit that each of the ballots of Depot
Precinct, referred to in plaintiff‘s petition, have the name of
Samba nelson written thereon but they deny that said signature
appears in five or any number in excess of one different hand» ~
writings, from the true or actual handwriting of the said Samba
helson or that said alleged signatures thereon were not made
by the said Samba Eelson or by any other persons with his knowl— L
edge or consent.
Eefendants deny that in each or any of the precincts

in Floyd County, Kentucky, mentioned or set out in paragraph 4 E
of plaintiff‘s petition, the number or any number of voters V
under the column headed and designated "Table Voters" were
unlawfully, illegally or without right permitted by the said
election officers of the divers or any precincts, respectively. . y
or at all to vote in Said election openly or upon the table
without being sworn as to their enabllity to read the English
language or to properly mark their ballot, or that they or either
of them were blind. Deny that each or any of said alleged illegal
table votes were voted for the defendants, Harold Bailey or Guy

_ .. ..‘

 O O
fihildere, or tWrt the ecfifl wileffifl votes or ballots of each or
:53 a? Gala wwtwrv weye fefiomited in the wallet taxes 0? said
firecimefii reficectjveivt or voee tehulated or moumtvfi few the
éefonfiofitm, 725616 ?~iley or “my “hilflero b“ the Geri ef FleCw
315% fiorniéoifificme of Vlflyf County: or Were certified %V th“
eatfi Wcovi of “loot on Nemflieeienore to bvvv been weavived by
4:376 {it"“f‘fifiru’ii’mtz, ”"”:"?st "3311,5737 my {‘Yuy i..‘l}’1.jj,drj¥?f’£gd
“in {~1_~?.£ez'g-z,:3a~_ at»: fez“? '3. w? of; ';:ri‘i'LT’rr or,“ '9""r-2:‘.jm.ct 3312‘ at

may :21} “$132635: "t :T::*ea~;x:~’;zr1t (::‘ ’31er of? rmgr imoe a". -:21*i:153:; the
tile finifi election Woe Eeifig field d'”?”?not or 55y office? 0?
effieorm a” nfii3 eloutiua or flue a? ”are or wt? 9? oeid officers
meet in tee Er*th with a lorge a? eoy percentage of the vetere
“1h"; ti ’3 E ::"7'25’1 """:.“zzoix‘lcrif. 5t the time twin“. Waters"??? Tet“:'.‘rfig‘!;“72Jivel.§7 a
.Wfi e ' it??? 1:5?Weit"h~litotsa o? ¥fb mxgr atruev timxa,cx" tlvtt sraifi

‘ c??§cer :r LVTi¢055 t? the elevtien were in nwid ertfie at the
tiee when wt tenet 125 or any other number of the germane voting
at 3wifi fifififiiflflfi were in said booth or :nyfltn; their ballets
regjectiVGTgu ”05y that emifl allegcé motion on the watt of said
election office?e; nfldoh ta dented; iu going into Hate hoothe
with Rflifi votcre, which is fieniefi, wee or fie unlewfel or illegal
er tknt oqifi voter markiufi him Mallet in the preeence cf said
officere likewioe or at all shamed for whom seia voter votoi,
rcsyeot;ve13 or at all, or thereby, or at all, deetroyeé the eec-
racy of the toilet in eaid precincta Deny that each or any of
said hallote alleged to have been so voted in acid hootfle in the
presence 0f gush officers of the election, whioh they fieny, woe
or is null or void; deny that each or any of said alleged ballots,
alleged to have been so voted in the presence of an officer of the

.- ll —

 ' o 0
election in the elect on baath was Cast for the defendauts,
Strold Talley or Guy Childcrs, or that Said alleged ballots were
. placsd in the 1&ll3t box of said precinct or wewe tabulated er
canntefi Ear th: defeudaflts, Karold Bailey Or Guy Childcra, by
the Boari of Electisn Commiasioners of Tlayfl Csumtyg ?cntugky,
or ware certified by the said anrd of Election Commissioners
is have heefi received by the defendants, Harold Bailey or Guy
Childersu They dmny that by renaun of the alleged grogs miSw
conduct on file part of @he officers of the election in said
precinct or for any other reasen or for the IEaSUfl fihat a large
percent of the illegal voteg cast therein for Harold Bailey and
Guy Chllderfi, which they deny, the whole or any of ihe vote of
said precinct caSt for defendantg shuuld be discarded or not
counted for either of the Said defendants, Harold Bailey or Guy
‘ Childersa Remy that the election officers ifl said vrecinct
were each or gay friendly to or were suygorters of the iefgndv
ants, Harold Bailey or Guy Childersg or were adverse he or '
antagonistic to the plaintiff herein.

The defendants for answer to paragraph 8 af plaintiff's
petition9 éeny that in Mouth of Mad Precinct weré‘ the following
or any persons unlawfully or at all given ballots by the election

‘ officers or any of them and permitted to vote or to participate
in said election or that none of said persons were legal voters
in said precinct at said election or that they or each or any
of them voted for the defendants, Harold Bailey or Gay Childers.
Or that none of said persons had residei in the State of Ken~
tacky one year next before the election, nor in the County of
Flbyd for six months next before the election, nor in the Mouth

I of Mud Precinct for sixty days next preceding the election, or

a 12 -

 t. O
that the named 0r same of the alleged permmnd alleged to have
heed gcrwittcd to vote for the defenddats or either of them in
alleged violatidn 3f law or as follows,to~wits
W. Ce Johns Hattie Jonee 30 R. Porter
Edwin flnltere Jim Castle Uo G. anndrd
.fimbnrs Hall Garfield Castle Belmont Vdvnard
Johndy Walters Frank Rick firs. U" L.uflaynard
Trio Johnny Tslters 3rd. Till Jonee Profit Keithley
Eyra Ydltere Frank Jonee Watt Robinett
Vbry Porter Troy Layne firs. ?ntt Robinett
Kidtie kmbdrgy Tarvin' alters Tom Akers.
Elmer Cinley 3‘1‘ 3“ Banyan

Shay deny that any of said persons were paraittmd to
vote for tme defendants or either of them in violatica cf law or
at all, or that each or all or any cf the said twenty~five per«
sons, above named, vated fer the defendants, guy Childers or
Harold Bailey, in alleged violation of law or at all; or deposited
tndir ballotd in the box provided fur said precinct or thereafter
or at all were e"ch or all or any of said ballots canvaused or
certified for the defendants, Guy Childers or Harold Bailey or
are a part of the total or any number of votes certified for the
defendanta9 Harold Bailey or Guy Childeregby the Floyd County
Board of Election Commissioners 0r that the twenty«five alleged
illegal votes as attemgted to be set out in the petitinn or any
one of said twentyefive votee should be yurged or deducted from
the total number of votes certified for the defendanta, Harold
Bailey or Guy Childers.

The defendants deny that in Tickey Precinct, do. 16,
was the total vote shown for the defendante, Guy Childerey or
Harold Bailey erroneous or incorrect or does not Show the dumber
of legal votes received in said precinct by said Harold Bailey or
Guy Childers except to the extent that there should have been

- 13 ~

 g C
canvassed for the dofendont, Guy Childers 156 votes in said
prooimoh and 153 votes for the defendant? Harold Bailey. The
defendants flony that due to any alleged gross or any alleged
fraud or wllofiod oribnry or alleged intimidation on the part
of the Gloat3on officero of said orocinot at said election9
or any of E‘Ch oleotion officersg which alleged fraud, bribery
Rafi imtiwifiwtion is expressly denied and not admitted; By this ’
answer or for way other reosong is it impoosiblo to fletormine
the number of legal votoo resolved by “lointiff or the defendants
or oifihor of then or irposoihle to sonarote the logol ballots

. from the nilogofi illegal ones or one or float there were any illegal
ballots cast 1o oaid precinct for the defendants or either of
them, or brat ooid precinct should therefore or at all be thrown
out or discardtfl or 154 or any voteo certified ror Guy Childers
or 151 or any votes certified for Harold failey should be de«
ducted from the tool number of votes received by the defendants,
Guy Childers or Harold Bailey. Or that solely or at all or by‘
reason of any alleged frond or alleged bribery or alleged intimi»
dation of the alleged officers in said precinct or any of them
were or are unlawful or illega1,iore than twenty or any percent
of the total votes canvassed, tabulated or certified by the Elec- -
tion Commissioners in said precinct or by reason of which or for
any reason is it imposoiblo to determine for whom the legal votes
‘woro cost or impossible to determine the number of legal votes
received by the plaintiff or the defendants or either of them,
or that the election officers in said precinct or any of them
wrongfully, illegally, unlawfully or at all permitted a large
or any nunfler of voters to vote openly or on the table or hot
secretly or when such voters were not blind or physically dis'
abled or that none of whom declared upon Oath that he was blind

' — 14 —

 0 0
0r 3:9.h1w? or thxt :11 my way of which the gractficufi 33 any
extent nr greatlccd to rail Mu ca; ht as to Q3 did dastroy the
uenrfluy 2f the ha‘lntin; at the election 11 5¢id :rcoinet or that
in :wfilfhieqz tn {$13 fiZZfiQ ed i2f43¢11 L;‘.:‘lt