The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1875-11-27
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Obertistr.
SATURDAY. OVEUBER y.
Brigham Young Must Pay Alimony to
Ann Eliza.
OPINION Of CHIEF JUSTICE xcKEAN.

MCLEAN CH, J.-in her complaint the plain
tiff alleges, among other things, that she was
born at Nauvoo, in the State Of Illinois that
she l. now, and has been continuously since the
year 1913, a resident of salt Lake County, in
this Territory that on the 9th day Of April,
1868, she and the defendant, Brigham Young,
InteTmaTrled at that county that ever since then
she has been, and Is now. the wife Of the deien-
dant; that at the time of said marriage she was
in the twenty-ffth year Of her age, and the
mother of two children, the issue Of q former
marriage that those children were aged, one
four years and the o her two years that neither
she nor her children had any estate or patrimony
whatever, and that they were entirely dependent
upon her for their nurture and education with
all of which facts the defendant was well ac-
quainted, and Of which he had been informed
prior to the said marriage that said children,
both Of whom are boys, are still living, and, from
the time Of her marriage to the defendant, have
been continuously, and are now, under her GUS
tOdy, and with no means OF support except such
as she can provide; that for a period of about
one year after his marriage, the defendant lived,
and cohabited with, and acted toward the plain
tiff with some degree of kindness and attention,
and during that time contributed 10 her mainte-
nance and the support Of her two little children,
not, however, IN a manner proportionate to his
means or TO her station in life that during all
the period mentioned, and ever since then she
has discharged with fidelity all the duties and
obligations incumbent on her as Il married wo-
man, and uniformly treated the defendant with
the utmost tenderness, ever mindful of her re-
sponsibilitics as n wife that about n year after
his said marriage, for some cause or motive I'M
known TO the plaintiff, the defendant, regardless
of all his marital obligations, commenced towards
her n systematic course of neglect, unkindness,
cruel and inhuman treatment, ending in an abso-
Lutte desertion of her, and forcing upon her the
conviction that the defendant no longer enter
tanned for her the slightest feeling Of affection or
respect, and had altogether withdrawn from her
his support and protection.
To sustain these allegations, the plaintiff states,
in detail, many facts and circumstances, among
others, that the defendant has failed and refused
to furnish her with necessary food and medical
attendance, or the means to obtain them, and
prays that by the final decree of this Court the
defendant be ordered and decreed to support
the plaintiff and her children, and that the bonds
OF m~atrlmony between the plaintiff and the de-
PENDANT be forever dissolved and that during the
tendency of this action the defendant be ordered
and required to pay alimony to the plaintiff, for
the maintenance and support of herself and chill
dren, and sustenance to her solicitors and coun-
sci, &c.
This complaint, which is verified, contains all
necessary ~averments, and sets forth a complete
cause of action under the statute Of Utah. Were
its allegations all admitted, the plaintiff would be
entitled to the relief prayed for as a matter of
course. But the defendant has interposed an
answer, under oath, admitting some and denying
some of those allegations.
AhO ASAAANe AADb H0AAAASNNJ NNAA~N NAN NbSA
qualiiedly admits, the marriage of April 9th,
1868. His denial is as follows
Now comes the said defendant, Brigham
Young, and for answer to the bill of complaint
of the said Ann Eliza Young, plaintiff, denies
that on the sixth day of April, 1868, at the
County Of Salt Lake, Utah Territory, or at any
other time or place, this defendant and the said
plaintiff intermarried, or that since that time, or
at any time, the said plaintiff has been, or that
she now is, the wife of this defendant, on in
nr.,a fInY1 on1 halioc olIann, fhaf haEora fhat
time to-wit on the tenth day of April, 1868, at
Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, the said plaintiff
was married to one James l.. Dee, who is still
living, and that ever since the said tenth day of
April, 1868, the said plaintiff has been, and, on
the said sixth day of April 1868, was, and still
is, the lawful wife of the said James L. Dee,
never, as this defendant is now advised and be-
lieves, having been divorced from the said James
l.. Dee. But this defendant further says, that on
the sixth day of April, 1868, and at the time of
the ceremony hereinafter referred to, he was in
formed, and then verify believed that the plain
tiff had, prior to that time, been legally divorced
from the said James L.. Dee"
The defendant's admission Of the marriage is
as follows
"But the defendant says that he and the said
complainant were, on the said sixth day of April,
1868, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, and that it was a doctrine and
belief of said Church, that members thereof might
rightfully enter into plural or celestial marriage.
And the defendant admits that on the sixth day of
April, 1868, at Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, in
accordance with and pursuant to the said doctrines,
customs, and belief of the said Church, n ceremony
was performed to unite the plaintiff and defendant
in what is known as such plural or celestial mar
rage = = =. "But the defendant denies that
on the said sixth day of April, or at any other time,
he and the said plaintiff intermarried in any other
or different sense or manner than that above admitted
and set forth"
1t is an anomaly in pleading to deny that a certain
took place in 1868, "fOr,'' or because, q
certain other marriaOa toOl< nlacp in 1863 An ar
denial, like this, is not good in law.
The plaintiffs allegation, not being specifically de-
MED, is admitted. (Ufah Practice .fct, sec. 65.)
What does the subsequent express admission amount
TOT
"Where the admissions In an answer negative it's
general denials, the latter may be digregarded and
asked upon the former, when the complaint
verified, and the answer consists OF such admls-
sions and d~enials." (Premonf ct al. y. Seals ct al,
Is Cal. 433; Blood .. Light, 81 Cal. IL; Fish q.
Redington, ID. 1867 ga sworn answer must be
in itself, and must not deny in oHe SEN
tence what it admits to be true in the next 1.-The
of sworn ~pleadings is to elicit the truth and
this object must be entirely defeated if the same fact
may be denied and admitted in the same pleading
(HeRSiey .. Tartar, IA Cal. 608) The defendants
qualified and defective denial of the marriage of
April 9th, 1868, is consistent with his subsequent
that the parties were intermarried on that
Did the defendant mean to hint what he did
not like openly to say to the Court, that . marriage
by authority of the &c Church - of which
ne is the acknowledged head, is illegal, null, and
void? Let US inquire whether q marriage solemnized
By such authority is necessarily void.
An ordinance first enacted by the so-called State
Of Deseret, and afterwards reenacted by the Terrific
rial Legislative Assembly, entitled, A Ordinance
Incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints" provides: "Sec. 3.-And be it further
ordained that as said Church holds the constitu-
ional and original right, in common with all civil
md religious communities, TO worship God according
10 the dictates Of conscience; to reverence commu-
agreeably to the principles of truth, aud TO So
emui-e m1rrilge, compatible with the revelations
If Jesus Christ, for the security and full enjoyment
If ali blessings and privileges embodied in the reli-
of Jesus Christ free to all, it is also declared
hat said Church does and shall possess and enjoy
continually the power and authority, in and of it.
elf, TO originate, make, pass and establish rules,
ordinances, laws, customs and criterions ?
or the good order, safety, government, convenience,
comfort and control of said Church. &c.
I. 1872 h LII Anwn rs o snnnL Iannl nrnnns;tinn