Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-10-08
make solemn promises and covenants to

live together?
AYES, sir; we made covenants; but
l don't think it proper question, and
won't answer any more.
Varian--You are not breaking any law
in answering the question.
Al don think you have any right to
ask such private questions.
Q.-Didn't you live together as hus-
band and wife?
Ave lived together as a concubine
or wife as the Judge says.
Q.-Then you lived with Lucy as
concubine, did you?
A.-No, sir; the Court so explains it.
Varian-You are mad, are you, and
only intend to answer such questions rs
you see fit?
Ayes. | don't like the questions.
| | courted Lucy at Mrs Austin's; can't
tell whether got the bishops consent to
marry her or not.
Q.-Is there any other William New
som in this city?
A.-None that | know of; | knew W..
B. Newsom; deny that letter; there are
plenty of people who know my pedigree,
| paid no attention to yesterdays tcsti-
mony; was thinking OF other things and
am now thinking of other matters.
Varian-Please come back to earth
and the court room for brief moment
and answer the few questions | desire to
ask YOU Was the testimony of Lucy
Deveraux yesterday false or true?
Alt was a lie.
The witness was excused and the
prosecution rested the case.
Varian-Gentleme of the jury, there
being two counts in this indictment you
will need regard each. The defendant is
charged with polygamy and unlawful CO.
habitation with Kate Newsom and Lucy
Deveraux call your attention to the
testimony of Mrs. Swain and MIR. Rod
ford, who stated that the defendant and
Kate Newsom were married and SO ac-
knowledged while crossing the plains
over 20 years ago The evidence seems to
establish the fact OF the first marriage:
Now the evidence in the second or plural
marriage between defendant and Lucy
Deyeraux fixes the fact beyond u doubt.
That they have lived together in the
marriage relation is undoubted from the
testimony of Lucy and Lizzie DeverauX
and others brought here before you. The
question as to whether they were sealed
or married in 1881 or more re-
Gently is the question on which
hinges this case of polygamy
The speaker here again produced the
long letter written by defendant to Mrs
Deveraux in England, relative to hi
and Lucy's plural marriage Defendan
denies this letter. Newsom says it mus
be forgery. 1t does not appear that he
: has any enemies who would wickedly per
petrate such document to convict him
The prosecution presented all the facts o
the evidence and asked the jury to pre-
sent verdict on both counts in the in
, dictment.
: JUDGE HARDNESS
For the defense summed up the case an,
, said that the defendant and Lucy Dever
aux, the only two witnesses who know
, anything Of the marriage, say that the.
were united in 1881. He maintained tina
no consequence in forming the convic
, ton of the defendant Nothing definit
in relation to this plural marriage wa
disclosed in the evidence given by Lizzie
= who only remembered hearing a fe,
rambling remarks about wed
ding having taken place. Luc
Deveraux showed by her testimon
that she had lived the first two years {
her life in Salt Lake at Mrs. Austin's
, This lady became suspicious of Luc
being married. Newsom says he me
Lucy while painting q house near Mrs
Austin's, and month afterward the
= went through the Endowment House an
kept it quiet from Mrs. Kate Newsun
4 who seemed to have objected to the plur;
4 marriage. Newsom and Lucy contirl
q each others testimony relative to tn
time OF marriage in 1851, and a
q the circumstances Tend to prove i
Now, regarding this letter which Newsol
denies. 1t is most peculiar letter, an
n on the top of it is dated William d. New
som, and is first dated, February 20tl
1881, and then changed to March Sth,
d the same year. This letter shows upo
d its face that whoever wrote it preferred
= have it dated March Sth, instead of IL
date scratched out. 1t is addressed
"My dear mother" and as no other nan
occurs in the body of it, "dear mother
must refer to w. d. Newsom from IL
reading. This singular letter was four
Q Indications OF it ever having bee
ir mailed, save the fact that it
> doubled. There is no proof but that IL
re defendant might have written this lett
"a to simply practice his Imagination
d writing to himself. Mr.. Miller, called
r. examine the signature, bases his decisic
le on the letter en- which is made in bo
cases with an upstroke both in the lett
and in his signature on the Marsha's pi
e. roll. This letter is all the evidence in Il
world that the marriage took place
re 1873. You must find evidence that til
marriage occurred less than three yea
ago, and / see no such evidence to wa
G. rant such finding.
Mr.. Kirkpatrick-Th two counts Il
punishable. The first with five yeal
e. imprisonment and fine OF $500 III
Is second with six months imprisonme
and fine OF $500. The speaker made
=. very eloquent speech in recounting Il
II limited intelligence and easily delud,
mind OF the defendant and his limit,
~ means for support The story told
" the prosecution bears the stamp OF prob
BILE things and not facts. Human natu
ne is the same the world over, and y,
know the motive entertained by the
re PENDANT and Lucy in secretng the set
'o ing from Kate Newsom.
This document OF suspicion was fom
W in the hands of the prosecution, and G'
Ir only knows where it was first obtane
u Why don't they explain the source
r. this solitary letter? Newsom says he d
" not write that letter, and now what
left to establish the fact that this
10 PENDANT has broken any law again
" polygamy? Is there lingering in yo
minds any thought OF guilt against IL
ny man? Now, gentlemen, the law d
. mands that If you have Il reasonat
u, doubt about the guilt OF this ma