Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-06-11
AN APPEAL OF ANGUISH.
The Cannon Unlawful COhab. Case
Being Fought Over Again.
An Alleged Mass Of Errors Brought
Up by the Defense.
"A Faulty Indictment" and ga Yer
dict Against Law and the
Evidence"


MANY visitors were in attendance to lis
ten to the arguments of appeal on a mo-
ton for new trials in the cases OF A. NJ.
Musser and Angus NJ. Cannon. Frank
lin S. Richards, Arthur Brown, suther-
land & Mcbride, and Bennett, Hardness
and Kirkpatrick were present as attorneys
for appellant. U. S. Attorney Dickson
faced the phalanx as respondent in be-
half of the Government.
The case of A. Milton Musser being
called for hearing, Mr.. Dickson asked for
a continuance of time in which to make
necessary preparations, as but three OF
the five allotted days had been consumed.
The case will be heard tomorrow.
The Cannon case was then taken up
and Judge Sutherland proceeded with a
lengthy and exhaustive argument OF all
THE EXCEPTIONS AND ERRORS,
On which the appeal is based. The in
dictment found by the Grand Jury on
the I'd day of February, 1885, charging
that A. M. Cannon on the first day OF
June, 1882, and on divers other days, and
continuously between the said first day
of June, 1882, and the last day of Febru-
ary, 1885, at the county of Salt Lake and
Territory of Utah, did unlawfully cohabit
with more than one woman, to-wit: one
Amanda Cannon and one Clara G. Mason,
sometimes known as Clara G.. Cannon,
against the form of the statute of the said
United States in such cases made and
provided, and against the peace and dig
nity of the same. A plea of not guilty
was made and duly endorsed on the in
dictment February 18th. 1885. A jury
was impaneled and trial commenced
April 9th, 1885, and on the Goth of April
of the same year the jury rendered a
verdict of guilty as charged in the indict-
ment.
THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
The defendant moved for a new trial
and that the verdict herein given be set
aside for the following reasons:
First-The Court misdirected the jury
in matters of law, by charging them as he
did and in refusing to charge as requested
by defendant in each of the charges re-
quested.
Second-The Court erred in the deci-
sion OF questions of law during the trial, in
admitting the testimony objected to by
defendant, and in rejecting testimony
offered by defendant; and throughout the
Transcription appeal several reasons are
given, embracing the following points:
The verdict is contrary to the law and
against the evidence in the case in this
particular, that there was no evidence in
4 h. cuff 10 fha 10
find the defendant guilty of the crime of
unlawful cohabitation charged as defined
by the Court. That there was no evil
dence that defendant ever held out to the
world as his wives more than one
woman or cohabited with more than one
woman after the passage of the act
making such conduct criminal. Further,
that the juror
A. NJ. JOHNSON WAS NOT A QUALIFIED JUROR
In the case for the reason that he had
been guilty of living in polygamy or big
amy, ard his answers that he did not be-
lieve it right to live in that relation were
untrue. Besides, the court erred in sus-
tanning the sufficiency of the Indictment.
The motion is founded on the files
and record of the case, on the tertimony
of the witnesses, the notes of the short
hand reporter, and the charge of the
Judge and his refusals to charge, as we'll
as upon the affidaviys of Mrs. l.. B. Kin
ney, Bessie Kinney, w. l.. Henderson,
John G. Cutler and Angus M. Cannon
filed herewith.
1t will be remembered by the readers
of the trial proceedings given in the
papers that Mrs. Bessie King is the
woman who claims that the Juror A. M.
Johnson was married in 1874 by Mr..
Kinney, in Bingham, to Mary Roper, and
against whom Mrs. Annie johnson, pur-
porting to be his wife, brought suit for
divorce in the Salt Lake courts. This
testimony is used to show Mr.. Johnson
not qualified to act as juror. The
testimony of Mr.. Henderson was to the
same purpose as that of Mrs. Kinney.
Everyone is more or less familiar with
the evidence that was given in the case
and the many objections brought by the
defense. The instructions of the Judge
to the jury forms strong point now at
issue as it is claimed to be erroneous in
law. 1t is as follows:
JUDGE zANE's CHARGE.
The indictment in this case charges that
the defendant, on the first day of June. in
the year of our Lord 1882, and on divers
other days continuously between said first
day of June, 1882, and the first day of Feb
ruary, 1885, did unlawfully cohabit with
more than one woman, to-wit: One Amanda
Cannon and one Clara C. Mason, sometimes
known as Clara G. Cannon. If you believe
from the evidence, gentlemen of the iury,
that the defendant lived in the same house
with Amanda Cannon and Clara C. Cannon,
the women named in the Indictment. and
ate at their respective tables one-third of
his time or Whereabouts, and that he held
them out to the world by his language or his
conduct, or by both, as his wives, you should
find him guilty.
1t is not necessary that the evidence
should show that the defendant and these
women, or either of them, occupied the same
bed, or slept IN the same room; neither is il
necessary that the evidence should show
that within the time mentioned, he had
sexual intercourse with either of them.
L Will state, the law presumes the de-
PENDANT innocent until proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt; and you are the indoes
of the credlbility of the witnesses. the
weight of the evidence and of the fact. and
if you find the defendant guilty. Won will
say in your verdict, "We, the jury, find the
defendant guilty in manner and form as
charged in the Indictment" and if you find
him not guilty, you will say, 1--WE, the jury,
find the defendant not guilty"
In the lengthy brief twenty-four re-
quests were made to the Judge by the
defense, to be used in instructing the
Jury, and the refusals and many excep-
tons are also given.
The grounds on which new trial was
asked were, to wit: That the Court mis-
directed the jury in matters of law and
erred in the decision of questions of law
arising during the course of the trial
hat the verdict is contrary to law and the
verdict is contrary to the evidence. Judge
TOUCHED ON THE GENDER OF "ANGUs,"
The proper meaning of cohabitation, and |
N onxy