Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-10-01

than three years ago. think the child
is between three and four years old,
dating from the time when moved from
the Bee Hive house.
Spencer Clawson-I live in the city /;
know Mr.. Rossiter; have known Myra
Young from childhood: she is sister to
my wife; she lives in the north part of
the Bee Hive; visit there; have seen
Rosster there have been there in the
afternoon to dinner party; Mr.. Rossiter
came in late, when dinner was about
over; she bears the name of Ros-
sitter in my family; Mr.. Rossiter has been
to my house at dinner parties when Myra
was present; never heard Rossiter speak
of her as his wife; / cannot say how L
formed the opinion, but l think they are
reputed to be husband and wife.
Cross-eXamined-1Iav known MIR.
Rossiter about fifteen years ever since
he was private collector for the late Pres
ident Brigham Young; he is agent for the
heirs of the estate he is compelled to
visit the houses OF the heirs.
Mr.. ]. d. Spencer, recalled: Mr..
Spencer, do you know where Mrs. Young
is? No, sir. Do you know whether she
was at home this morning when the
officers called? do not.
The prosecution announced that all
their evidence was in.
Judge Hardness. If the Court please,
this case comes under the Edmunds act,
furnishing the crime OF unlawful cohabi-
tation. The law embraces three things
in the treatment of these cases.
l apprehend that your Honor
would charge the jury that
the defendant had lived in the house
with Myra Young portion OF the time in
the marriage relation. Again, some of
the witnesses put on the stand by the
prosecution were asked if the defendant
was not reputed to be married to Myra
Young | contend there can be no au
thority for carrying the question so far as
to make business or social call at the
house of divorced wife or friend repute
OF cohabitation. l am now moving to
strike out from the evidence that this man
has been reputed to be married to Myra
Young. The evidence that the defend
ant has been Mt the house dozen times,
does not show that he lives there. The
reputation that he must be married to
Myra Young because he has made visits
there OF a business relation is not admis-
sble as proof that marriage exists.
Judge Kirkpatrick spoke to show that
crime the same proof must be given as is
required in all other crimes. Hearsay
testimony is incompetent as Il general
principle in establishing the guilt OF any
person. If no better evidence than COM
mon repute can be brought as proof
against defendant, then the rumor is
sometimes taken with credence in re-
stricted sense, but something better than
mere talk and reputation is required to
establish evidence against defendant on
trial. The fact to be proven is whether
these parties here reputed to be married
are dwelling together in the marriage re-
lation, as your Honor ruled in the Mus
SER Cannon cases. If these persons are
living together within the heart of this
city, can no better proof OF unlawful CO.
habitation be made than the giving OF
rumor and reputation?
The defense moved to strike out the
testimony as to repute of marriage, etc
The motion was denied in part by the
Court, and only allowed in one view.
The defense rested.
Mr.. Varian summed up the evidence
adduced to show that the only reasonable
conclusion to arrive at was that Mr. Ros-
sitter is guilty as charged in the indct-
ment.
AT 2 O'Clock this afternoon the Rossiter
case was resumed by Mr.. Varian citing
many references showing that the same
evidence admissible in other criminal
cases would be taken in U. C. cases.
Judge darkness made some pointed
remarks, and was followed by his associate,
Judge Kirkpatrick, in attempting to show
that this class OF cases could not legally
be based on differences and Prescriptions
as evidence. Judge Hardness compli-
mented Messrs. Dickson and Varian for
the able and fair manner in which they
had conducted this class OF cases, and
addressed the jury in logical
and forcible manner. 1t was admitted
that Mr.. Rossiter had married Myra
Young, his plural wife, and had Il child
by her, but that since the Edmunds act
the defendant had lived in conformity to
the law, and no case existed against him.
The jury after being out three-quarters
OF an hour, filed into Court and reported
verdict of guilty. The Court then fixed
October 10th for passing sentence.