Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-05-21
PECULIAR" NONSENSE.

Recently there was case before the
United States Commissioner for polyg-
amv and unlawful cohabitaiion, in which
one Newsom was the defendant. The
same case is now before the grand jury,
and the same witnesses are to be ex-
amined there as were examined before
the Commissioner. One of these wit
nesses is Lucy Deveraux, and she is sup
posed to be the plural wife of Newsom.
To establish this she was cited before the
grand jury and there asked certain
questions by the jury, which she de-
clined to answer. The jury submitted the
questions to the Court desiring to know
if they were proper and such as the jury,
in the discharge of its duties, had a right
to ask. The Court decided they were.
The jury again asked them of the wit
ness, Lucy Devereaux, and she declined
to answer. The question was one trying
to elicit information as to who was the
father of Lucy Devereaux' child. This
she fatty declined to tell, and upon the
jury reporting her refusal to the Court,
the Court held that it was case of con-
tempt, and remanded the witness to the
custody of the Marshal, until she should
see fit to answer the questions. So far she
has not seen fit to answer them, and she
still remains in the custody Of the Mar
shal. But this case is about to become
another case of persecution, and already
is being used to show how partial the adj
ministration Of the law in Utah is. This
morning the Herald speaks of the case,
and says that "this case will strike peo-
pie as being somewhat strange, wher it
is considered in connection with another
one that was disposed Of by His Honor
few days ago" Now, what was this
other case of which His Honor disposed a
few days since? 1t was this: A man had
seduced his wife's sister, and was arrested
by the officers and held for the same.
The man sued out writ of hdbeds corpus,
and on the hearing he was discharged, as
the Penal Code does not declare seduction
a crime, and says there shall be no
crimes save those defined and declared
therein. Why the legislators of Utah
who passed the Penal Code did not see
tit to make seduction a crime, they them
selves best know. But they did not, and
for this reason the Chief Justice discharg-
ed from custody the man who was held |
for the seduction of his sister-in-law; and |
it was for no other reason. The Herald |
makes this ungenerous and dishonest re-
mark about the Chief Justice: "But the
Chief Justice, the same who now COM
mits the Devereaux woman to iail for
contempt, held that the debaucher of
his sister was guilty of no crime, and re-
leased him without reprimand even.
considering these two cases together, at
what conclusion must one arrive?" The
conclusion at which the majority of
people will arrive, who know the
acts in the cases and the condition
IL our local laws as regards such crimes,
Will be that His Honor could not have
lone otherwise, seeing that there was no
aw in Utah declaring seduction a crime
md that it is necessary for any court, to
dignity and authority, to have
he power to punish those who hold it in
and to exercise that power
ust so often as witnesses or other persons
are guilty OF contempt of court. But
,hls is the conclusion to which the Herald
comes: Perhaps there is another ex-
PLANTATION, though we would not like to
'ay 1t is the correct one, however forciblv
t presents itself upon the mind when
thinking of the course of the Court The
man who seduced his sister-in-law is not
Mormon, while the Deveraux Mormon is a
member of that church" 1t is a very Door
md weak conclusion to come to in view
II all the facts, and more especially when
me remembers the law of parsimonv
which forbids such an explanation. We !
uggest the wisdom of halt" so far as l
UGH explanations are concerned, and l
hink that all parties would be much bet a
er off if fewer explanations of this kind Z
we're given. I