Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-09-10
c. c. HAUL FROM HEBER.
Three Edmunds Law FiOIatOrs
Brought In Before the
Commissioner.

! Deputy Marshal Vandercook arrived in
the city last night with three unlawful
cohabs from Heber City. Mr.. Wander
cook left Park City Wednesday morning
with assistants, and reached Heber City
at early dawn. Warrants OF arrest were
at once served on Joseph Moulton, John
Witt and John Duke, for the altogether
too prevalent practice OF these latter
days Some dozen witnesses were sub
penaed, and the excursion party reached
Salt Lake by train and wagons and were
comfortably lodged for the the night.
At 10 O'Clock this morning the entire
party was brought before Commissioner
Mckay for preliminary examination.
Mr.. Dickson appeared fer the prosecution
and F. S. Richards in behalf of the de-
PENDANTS.
John w. Witt, an elderly U. C. from
Heber City, was called and listened at
tentively to the reading of the complaint
/ which charged him with unlawfully CO.
habiting with more than one woman at
the same time, from 1882 to the first day
of the present month. In reply to
whether guilty or not guilty, he answered
not guilty.
His first wife is named Lovinia and
the second bears the Christian name OF
Martha, who was called to the stand, and
| for over half an hour testified to all sorts
of contradictory statements, but whether
Intentionally or from lack of ability to
remember" is better known by herself
than any one present.
Mr.. Dickson asked her where she had
lived, and how long she had known the
defendant, and if married to him, to
| which she answered.
live in Heber city; have known the
defendant for 16 years. | am married to
Mr.. Witt, and have three boys living,
aged respectively s, 10 and y years.
Had child born in November, 1880,
which died Is months afterward. Have
had no children since.
The witness evaded the questions of
the prosecution for some time, but testi-
| fed that she was married to John Witt,
had children who acknowledged him
as father, and that she had treated him
as her husband. Her house was about
two blocks from that of the first wifes,
and the defendant was Ill the habit of
calling about once q month, but. since
| 1859 he had never stopped all night or
eaten meal with her, although she had
given birth to several children from him.
| They had talked of separating since the
! last child died, because he did not visit
her often enough and stay with her as she
though he ought to. He continues to
call occasionally to see how the
children are getting along, and
we still recognize each other as
married, having made no separation
Although his calls are periodical, we
talked of dissolving the relations of man
and wife because ! wouldn't raise any
more children by him. Afterward she
stated that the separation was talked of
on account OF the Edmunds law, but they
made up and treated each other as they
have done for the past five years.
Mr.. Richards objected to the manner
OF Mr.. Dickson's questioning the witness
in deriving the facts.
Mr.. Dickson explained how impossible
it was to get the meaning of the witness
otherwise, and he was upheld in his
course of procedure. Sue claimed Witt
as her husband, the children as his, and
| the marriage relations still sustained with
| the exception of raising children, which
| she declined to do on account of his I'M
| fair treatment of her. -
Dickson-That's all.
Wesley Witt testified that he was son
of the defendant and lived in Heber
city since his birth, thirty years ago. He
couldn't tell how many children his
mother Loyina had, unless he counted
them, but he thought they num-
bered thirteen living and some
dead. The youngest was years
old and none had been born
since. His father, the defendant, lives
at home all the time. Knew Martha, the
wife in question. Couldn't say as to
their sustained marriage relations. Never
heard them call the defendant father,
dad, or the governor, but they addressed
| him by different phrases. Thought they
may have called him father sometimes.
| The Court found the evidence suffi-
| GENTLY convicting to call for a hearing
| before jury, and held the defendant in
bonds to the amount of 81 800, David N.
Murdoch and j. w. Witt, jr., going sure
| ties for the amount.
The second act in the Commissioners
court to-day was the examination into
| John Dukes unlawful practices The
defendant followed in the footsteps of
John Witt and other predecessors, and
| pleaded not guilty to the charge of his
having uniawfully cohabated with Martha
| and Mary Duke since 1882 till the first of
September, 1885.
The first witness called by the prose-
cution was Annie Malinda Duke, 15-
year-old daughter of the defendant She
| said her mothers name was Martha,
and they lived together in Heber
City. Her mother had ten living
children and three buried. The
youngest child is boy and was born
about year and half ago. Her father
lived with them about one-half of the
time, and the balance of his existence is
passed at Mary's.
Q.-Does he stop there one-half of the
time now?
Ale lives with mother all the time.
Q.-What did you mean by saying just
now, that he stays half the time at your
house and the remainder at Mary's?
Al forgot; | meant to say all the |
time. ~~ r. :
Q-Don't you know that you testified |
to his staying at Marthas house half |
the time and the balance at Mary's?
After some few minutes silence on the |
part OF the witness, with all the dread |
symptoms of spasm OF contempt creep
ing over the young lady, she finally said I
81 meant to say that father stops at
mothers part of the time, and occasion
ally at the other house,
Q.-Who lives at the other house?
A.-Mary Duke.
Dickson-That will do.
Elisha Duke said that he lived in
Heber City, and made his home part of
the time with his father and mother. He
worked out sometimes, and did not know
all about affairs at home. His mothers
name was Martha. Her youngest child
was between two and three years of age,
and named Hannah. The defendant