The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-10-11
OyERRULED.
Judge Zane DispOses of the
Motion.
THE CASE OF JOHN FOWLER.
A stupendous Array OF Words,
with But Little Law and Less
Logic The Motion
Denied.

The defendant in this case moved the
Court to set aside the indictment for a
number af reasons, that he should not
be held to answer the indictment found
by the grand jury in his case. And one
objection is, because the following
named persons, viz.-John Barton. o.
D. Hendrickson and others were each
AID all illegally rejected from saidpanel
of said grand jury, because they be-
lieved that polygamy was authorized by
divine law; although they stated on
their voir dire that they would, if on the
grand jury, find indictments under the
United States statute against polygamy
or bigamy, if the evidence before them
showed that any person had violated
said statute, and was liable to prosecu-
ton under it."
I have been referred to the Second
Utah Reports, q. S. versus ]. H. Miles.
In the trial of that case before the Dis
trict Court, those who belonged to and
were members of the Mormon Church
were asked if they believed in the doc
4rine OF polygamy, and they answered
that they did, but that they would
agree to enforce the law against 1t. The
Court commenting on the point now
under consideration said:
"a religious belief takes strong hold
upon the individual. If person be-
lieyes it is his religious duty and priv
ilege TO do an act, he would not, as
IC,l TNh onf q y
criminal. Looking upon the act as in
nocent, he would naturally, but per-
haps unconsciously, be averse to in
flicting punishment therefor. He
would not like to find man guilty OF a
crime for doing that which he thought
the Almighty authorized him to do. In
such. a case he would naturally lean
towards an acquittal, and would pos
sess that state of mind which would
lead to q Just inference that he would
not act with entire impartiality Ill the
case"
And the Court held, without reading
further, that the objection TO the ques-
tons asked the juor5 mentioned was
properly oyerruled, and held further
that tho jurors were properly excluded.
Reference was also made TO U. 3. Re
ports, 18th Otto, page 304, Miles VS.. I.
s. presume it was the same case, al
though have not examined into 1t,
! attorney Dickson-Yes, the same case
! your honor which considers the point
| have referred to, as decided IN. the
Utah Reports. The Court says:
at is evident from the examination
of the Jurors on their voir dire, that
they believed that polygamy was ODE
dience to the will of God. AT common
| law, this would have been ground for
principal challenge of jurors of the
same faith. Bla Com. BOB. It needs
no argument to shoV that jury COM
| posed of men entertaining such belief
could not have been free from bias or
prejudice on the trial for polygany, of
| a person who entertained the same be-
! lief, and whose offense consisted III the
act of living in pOlygamy."
The Court in this case also held that
| the objection to this question was pro-
perly oEerruled. 1t seems, therefore,
| that this objection has been settled by
| the Supreme Court of this Territory and
also BY the Supreme Court of the United
| States, and that il is not now On open
| question in this court.
| Another reason assigned by the de-
| PENDANT to set aside this indictment IS
THE defendant also assigns as further
and additional reasons why said indict-
ment should be set aside, that Thomp-
son Ritter, O member of the grand jury
| that found said indictment, was not n
the time said jury was impaneled, noI
! when said indictment was found, an
eligible Juror, as provided by law, be
cause his name was not on the jury list
prepared by the Probate Judge and the
clerk of this court for the year 1879, MOI
on the jury list for any other year, anc
his name was not drawn from the jury
box of this court"
It appears from the evidence in thi:
case that the name of Thompkins Ritter
was in the list prepared by the Probate
Judge and the Clerk. In that lis
Thompkins Ritter's place of residence
was given as Riverdale-a village, as
lunderstand-andt the name Ct Thompkin
Ritter was drawn ont OF the box. Th'
Marshal served the summons on him
and he appeared in answer TO the sum
mons and stated suppose that he wa
sworn and accepted-that his name va
Thompson Ritter He also stated her
Yesterday that there were bat twt
persons BY the name of Ritter in th'
place where he resided, himself and hi
brother George. While the name OF
person of course Is given 10 describ'
that person, the uiere name OF person
sometimes Is very imperfect deScrlp
ton, and unless you can couple some
thing with it the description would no
enable you TO find person always. Tn
name of John Smith. without locating
him. could DC answered by severa
thousands of raen. ! presume, in tn
United States, and it would be as per
/ feet a description OF one as another
!, When the Clerk of the Probate Cour
and the Probate Judge selected thi
name, they also connected with il tn
location. and from that and the evidence
of the witness that no other person OK
cept George Ritter and Thompson
Ritter lived there, il is quite clear wh'
they intended, and it would hardly d.
to say that they intended George Kite
because that is so unlike Thompson
while Thompkins is very much Xix
Thompson in sound though not tn
same. The name of person of cours
and the person himself are differen
things. The man whom the officers hat
: in their mind when they placed tn
name upon the list was undoubtedly
: from the evidence, Thompson Ritter.
1t has been made the reproach OF tn
, law, and while it is said TO De the per
] lection of human reason, sometime