Show HUSON CASE ARGUED iI i I Supreme Court Hears Senatorial Sena-torial Contest I TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT Appeal From the Decision of Judge Bolapp That the Courts Had No Jurisdiction in the Contest for tho State Senatorship From the Third Senatorial District Argued Before I a Full Bench of the Supreme Court Christmas Day Bride Sues for Divorce Di-vorce I I The Davis county Slate Senatorial contest case In which Ephraim P Ellison Elli-son Rep is the contcsant and appellant ap-pellant 1 and J G M Barnes Dom contcstec and respondent was argued and taken under advisement yesterday In the State Supreme court on appeal from the dcjcision l of Judge Rolapp In the Second JudicIal District court In Davis county The grounds of the contest were mal conduct on the part of certain judges of election the reception of Illegal votes errors in counting the votes and error In declaring the result in favor of Barnes The relief asked for Involved the hearing of testimony as to the various mailers alleged including the investigation investi-gation of the returns and the counting of the ballots Barnes had only a de d L ciarcu majority OL ono Vote anu it is alleged that errors were committed more than sufficient to change the result re-sult and elect Ellison by about twenty votes In the District court the conlestce I demurred to the complaint claiming that the court had no jurisdiction and that the Legislature itself was the proper body to take jurisdiction of the case Judge Rolapp adopted this view and sustained the demurrer from which ruling the appeal was taken The contention of the respondent was that by 1 the Constitution of the State article 6 sec 10 the entire matter of the election and qualification of members mem-bers of the Senate is committed exclusively exclu-sively to that body and that In so far as the chapter on election contests purports pur-ports to indicate a course of judicial procedure to determine the person lo whom a certIficate of election as member mem-ber of the Senate should go the act is unconstitutional and void Counsel for the appellant denied the alleged uncon sillutionality of the act or any portion of it and argued that the courts had Jurisdiction to supervise and control I the election machinery to the end that the certificate of election may be issued to the person who has been properly elected under the forms and guaranties of the laThe la-The arguments were made for the appellant by Attorneys E B Crlichlow and P L Williams and for thc respondent re-spondent by Judge Powers and J H Hurd |