History of Vernon County, Wisconsin. Together with sketches of its towns and villages, educational, civil, military and political history; portraits of prominent persons, and biographies of representative citizens.

              266
HISTORY OF VERNON COUNTY.
held the office of justice of the peace for several years.
B. S. Moore, of Readstown, succeeded Mr. Thorp and served one term.
In November, 1873, I. F. Thorp was again elected surveyor.
Egbert Wyman, of Hillsborough, was elected surveyor in November, 1875, and served two years. He is now reading law in the office of Rusk & Wyman at Viroqua.
W. H. Knower, of Genoa, was elected in No¬ vember, 1877, and being re-elected in 1879 and 1881, is the present surveyor. Mr. Knower has been a resident of the county since 1855. He was born in Roxbury, Mass., in 1830, and lived there until he was ten years of age, when he went to the city of New York with his parents. He received a good education and was engaged in teaching many years, both before and since he came west. He first came to Wisconsin in 1850, but returned to Brooklyn and engaged in busi¬ ness. ,In 1855 he came west to stay. He was married in Rock Co., Wis., to Mary Elliott. They have three sons and one daughter.
COUNTY JUDGE.
Thomas J. De Frees was the first county judge of Bad Ax county. He was elected upon the organization of the county in April, 1851, and served four years.
Hon. William F. Terhune, of Viroqua, suc¬ ceeded T. J. De Frees as county judge. He was elected in September, 1855.
In April, 1858, Hon. James E. Newell, of Vir¬ oqua, was elected county judge, serving a term of four years,
Hon.Carson Graham succeeded Judge Newell. He was elected in April, 1861, and re-elected in April, 1865, serving eight years.
In April, 1869, Hon. William S. Purdy, of Viroqua, was elected county judge.
Through the election of county judge, in April, 1873, there arose one of the most impor¬ tant lawsuits that has ever been decided by the supreme court of Wisconsin. The candidates for county judge were William S. Purdy, the
incumbent, and James E. Newell. Mr. Purdy received 1,217 votes and Mr. Newell 1,240, a majority for the latter of twenty-three votes. The salary of the county judge had been fixed at $1,000 per annnm, by the board of supervi¬ sors. During the campaign J. E. Newell pub¬ lished a card addressed to the voters, stating that he would attend to the duties of the office for the sum of $600 per annum. After the result of the election was declared, Mr. Purdy refused to give up the office. Both parties claimed to be elected, and both filed the official oath and bond required by law. Whereupon an action in the nature of quo warranto was brought in the supreme court by the attorney general at the relation of J. E. Newell, to determine which of the parties had been elected to the office. The grounds upon which the plaintiff, or relator, stood, was that he had received a majority of twenty-three votes over his opponent, and was therefore entitled to the office. The defendant, W. S. Purdy, based his defens* upon the ground that the offer of J. E. Newell to perform the work of the office for $600, and thus donate $400 to the county, was a species of bribery and tended to a corruption of the ballot box. He further named 100 voters and tax payers who it was claimed "intended to vote for the defend¬ ant, but were unlawfully and wrongfully induced by said corrupt offers of the relator, J. E. Newell, to change their purpose and vote for said relator." The points, made in the argument, supporting the grounds taken by the defense were : " t. It is bribery to pay money to a voter or to prom¬ ise him money or any other pecuniary consider¬ ation whereby he is induced to vote, or to for¬ bear voting, or whereby he is induced to vote for a particular candidate. 2. Though the offer here was to pay the county, and not the voters directly, yet it was an offer of pecuniary benefit to the voter and tax payer by diminished taxa¬ tion if he would vote for the relator and secure his election. 3. All votes obtained by the pe¬ cuniary inducement offered by the relator are illegal and must be disregarded by the court in