Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1875-08-06

dictment for this crime, as indeed Tor
any other. you should take care that the
evidence is OF such a character as to war
rant q conviction.
The grand Jury referred to, reported
that they had not had time to conpie,e
their investigations upon this suoJec''
and recommended that the mattef DC re-
submitted to the next grand jury, anu,
therefore. in Difference to their wishes, l
again submit the matter to you az TINS
time. Notwithstanding very much douot
any fruit from labor on this branch oil
your duty.
There is also another matter when
that grand jury recommended should
be submitted to you as Their sue
cessor, upon which. however, they
were not charged by the Court, and
by which l charge you at this time only
because it was 30 recommended by them.
This is the subject of polyeamy, OF the
the existence OF which in this county l
have but little doubt, at the same time
the proof Of the fact, under the peculiar
form under which suspect 1t exists. Is
80 difficult, in fact so nearly impossiole
in this State, that doubt the possibility
of any conviction. In coming to this
conclusion am Influenced by the diff
culties which have attended thu deal
ing with this offense in the Courts OF
the Territory Of Utah. where the proof
in similar cases is probably much more
readily obtained, and where the Courts
have manifested the determination to
punish this crime, but SO far hava failed
in every instance.
would therefore suggest that you find
no indictment for this offense unless the
proof is clear and satisfactory, besides
being obtainable within the jurisdiction
OF this State, for consider it highly i'm.
proper to cucumber Courts with the tria
| OF indictments which are not properly
sustained by proof. The result Is useless
labor and great expense.
While the foregoing expresses my views
touching the question of the poiygamJ
claimed to exist in our midst, l do mo-
mean to be understood that in my judg
ment it is absolutely impossible of proof
here, for there may be evidence produced
before you on this subject sufficient no
only to support an indictment, but to IN
sure a conviction, in which event yot
will of course find bill. only NEAR
! to say that I doubt the possibility OF OBJ
tanning such evidence, and therefore eau
ton you not to find an indictment with
ont that satisfactory testimony required
in all cases for conviction.
In pursuing your inquiries you are no
required to, but are at liberty to hea
testimony produced on behalf of defend
ants. And charge you to make no pre-
sentiment of indictments upon fiimsy o.
doubtful testimony. There should be
belief in your minds that the evidence II
sufficient to warrant conviction by
trial jury beyond reasonable doubt, be
fore you find an Indictment.
In conclusion, gentlemen, trust you
labors may be expeditiously gottel
through with, that neither i'll will, fear
favor nor affection will in any name
influence you, but that "all your doing
may be SO ordered" that at their close
may be truly said swell done" and tina
the expectation which the Court and al
good citizens have right to entertain
that your conduct will be actuated solel
by prudence and sense of duty unde
your oaths, may not be disappointed.
Very respectfully submitted in ope
Court, July term, 1875.
HENRY RIvEs. District Judge.