Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/262

 250 FSDERA.L BSPOBTER. �ion, signed by the judge of the corporation court of Manches- ter, to the effect that such receipts were not genuine unless signed by the state auditor, John E. Massey, himself. It was also proved that the judges of election rejected the votes of the persons in question on the additional ground that the taxes had not been paid by the persons offering to vote, but had been paid by some one for them, and that although the taxes were paid, yet, the payment being made contrary to the law of the state quoted above, the votes could not be re- ceived. �No proof was addueed by the prosecution, other than the foregoing, to show a wrongful animun or intent on the part of the defendants in rejecting the votes of the 13 persons named in the indiotment. �Counsel on either side submitted the case ■without airgur ment to the jury, with the understanding that the court would instruct the jury on the points of law involved, which the court did orally, but in substance as followS: �L. L. Lewis, U. S. Att'y, for prosecution. �George D. Wise and A. M. Keiley, ioi defendants. �Hughes, D. J., (charging jv/ry .) This case is important as affording an opportunity for a judieial construction of the election laws upon the somewhat difficult questions arising on the evidence before us. This is the only manner iu which a court of justice can conoern itself with elections. Their office is to try and pass upon controversies between parties ; either between the government and accused persons in crim- inal causes, or between one person and another in civil causes. A court of justice can regularly have to do only ■with causes inter partes. AU its forms and proceedings lead to an issue of fact or law, or both, between lUigants; and its function consists in deciding such issues. As incidental to this function it may grant injunctions and restraining oi'ders for proteeting property in controversy or the rights of liti- gants ; and it may issue writs of haheas corpus as a means of asceriaining whether a person in confinement is lawfuUj ooiifined upon a criminal charge. But these powers and pro cesses are only incidental to its chief and principal office oi ��� �