Nebraska advertiser., 1881-09-22
District Court Proceedin IS.

District Court Frooeedin IS.
The criminal docket. rs usual. was
not extensive. The case of the state
against SylvanuS W. tanner, charged
witch adultery with May f.. Cottrell,
was Of the greatest interest and drew
= bic crowd. There was considerable
trouble in procuring Il jury in this case.
rs nearly everybody had heard Of it and
formed some kind Of an opinion re-
garding the guilt or innocence of the
accused. In the afternoon of Friday
however, the jury was complete, and
taking testimony began. Mrs. Nancy
G.. Tanner, first and lawful wife of de-
fendant. and her brother substautiatcd
the fact of Tanners former marriage
with the said Nancy {. a divorce
paper was then produced by Tanners
lawyers bearing prinl0 f0cie evidence
that defendant had procured u legal
divorce from his wife, Nancy c.. at
Brigham City. Box Elder county, Utah
ITenitory. This was read in evidence
and also Il marriage certificate. of sub
seQuent date to the divorce. showing Il
a legal marriage Of Mary +. Cottrcll
and the defendant, at Oregon, Missouri,
! by Il Methodist minister So far the
situation, to TIE unlearncd in the in
tricaCies of the law. looked decidedly
favorable for defendant. But not so.
The prosecutor bringing mp the reserve
caused a dark and portentiOus cloud
to loom up and OVershadOW the defend
ants gleam of hope. The prosecutor
denied that Tanner was in Utah when
his divorce was grantel, or that he
was ever there, before or since. Could
this be substantiated by testimony, he
established by citing parallel court de-
ciSions on jurisdiction, that if Utah had
not jurisdiction of L an II g +,
therefore his alleged divorce was. null
and void. \ witness was then pro-
duced to prove that Tanner had ad-
mitted that he was not in Utah when
he got his divorce. n question of
| that import was asked, objected to, and
argued elaborately by counsel. The
court overruled the objection. At this
stage of the proceeding it was nearly
dark and the court took Il recess until
after supper. After supper the court
reaSSembled- the officers, the jury, the
lawyers, the crowd-all were there ex-
cept Tanner. Tanner didn't assemble.
a suspicion flashed over the court and
crowd that Tanner had "lit out" The
court waited and looked perpleXed
The crowd was sorely disappointed and
buZzed a confused discussion of the
situation. The defendants lawyers
Broadly and OSbOrn--didn't seem en-
tirelv overwhelmed on viewing the
vacant chair beside them, but serenely
smoled an acquiescing smile at the turn
affairs had taken. Broadly demanded
that the trial proceed. The court said
mot much, that's too thin;' or words
to that effect. The court did not pro-
pose to try Tanner while Tanner was
out in the brush. Call Tanner, said
the court to the sheriff and tell him tc
come into court or his recogniIanct
will be forfeited. The sheriff called
but Tanner didn't come, all the same
Then his surety, VIM. Mckinney, was
called, and next day came and paid the
forfeiture S2OO-mOney which Tan
ner had deposited to secure him. And
so Nemaha county is even with Tan
ner, or as nearly SO, ina financial point
as it ever will be. This is the end OF
the Tanner case at present. The wit
nesSeS, Anna F. and Mary f. COttrell
and Nancy {. Tanner were each re-
quired to give personal recognizance II
500 for their appearance as witnesses
at next term of court. Tanners Dohc
if he is captured or comes back, was
fixed by the court at $500.
In the case Of James williamson
youth who has been in jail here al
summer for forging five dollar note
on j. W. Bennett, IA n0lte pros. was en-
tered by the district attorney. 1t was
a case Of mercy, compassion and prom
ise to be good boy and an honest maI
forever in the future. The judge gave
the young man fatherly lecture be
fore setting him at liberty, that N
will surely heed if he cares to keel
clear of prisons and shackles in TN
future.
In the case of the State rs Sam. Ben
nett, for retailing liquors without
license, defendant gave bond III $50
for his appearance at next term. Alex
Snow surety. T@HNAH1t
j. w. Gavit was brought into cour
on a writ Of attachment, and tne'
1926 for disobeying command OF SUI
poena, as a witness in the Tanner case
CIVIL DOCKET. '''r-
Dnn1 Lva.r N,,u l. Holmes r pliCl