Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-24


out OF the country, he cried aloud, "See,
didn't We tell you so? And here's the
woman's signature Y" What can YOU
think OF such plot? What would you
think OF dog that would engage in such
low, villainous undertaking? When the
defendant appeared before the Grand
Jury he was told that II he preferred to
remain silent on the matter he could do
so; he chose to testify, and said he had
engaged this woman for the purpose and
paid her money for her services In his
testimony he has corroborated the
woman's evidence and sealed his fate
beyond the peradventure of a doubt.
THE EVIDENCE Is COMPLETE,
And not link in the chain of convicting
evidence is wanted, and the defendant
stands here to-day doomed as a criminal
to the charge against him, and on his
own voluntary testimony.
THE DEFENSE COMMENCES.
Judge Hoge followed Mr.. Varian for the
defense by saying that the statutes cited
were obsolete, and where is the case ever
brought by the prosecuting attorney be-
fore this court? Gentlemen of the jury,
would call your attention to the fact
that the Court brought the last Grand
regarding the evidence of these objection
able houses and
THEY FAILED TO BRING IN AN INDICTMENT.
The defendant is not called in here to
explain away any crime, but to simply
answer the charge alleged in the indict-
ment. The fact must be shown that a
conspiracy was entered into to establish
this house of ill.fame. Mrs. Field tes-
titles upon this stand that Mr.. Hampton
entered into an agreement with her to
open house of ill-fame, that he paid the
rent and bought the furniture and man.
aged the affair. Did she, could she or
would she tell you n single word that
ment? No. She could not, and only
admitted that he hired her to work for
him, and that he was to open the house
of ill-fame. That is the substance of her
testimony in regard to the conspiracy.
Does the fact that she wrote to or called
on Mr. Mckay to learn the particulars
regarding the opening OF n house of ill
fame corroborate the testimony of the
prosecution? Take Mr.. SCOTS evidence
| as to what Mr.. Hampton stated before
the Grand Jury. He testifies here that
the defendant said he paid the woman
Fields about $400, with the evident in
| tention of
DETECTING FREoUENTERs TO THIS HOUSE.
Mr.. Morris II. Evans, evidently very
willing witness, stated here that Mr..
Hampton said he paid this woman GER
tain amount OF money. This man Ray
bould said he believed he could relate the
substance of the testimony, that Hamp-
| ton gave the woman certain amount OF
money.
Mr.. w. Pitt, in almost direct contra
diction to Mr.. Evans, said Mr.. Hampton
stated he paid the woman some $500 or
$500. Here two witnesses corroborate
the testimony of the defense in almost
absolute contradiction to what others of
the prosecution presented here. l ask
you where the evidence OF the three
Grand Jurors corroborate the testimony
of this woman in proving conspiracy ?
Mr.. Salmon and Brig Hampton admitted
the payment OF money, but it does not cor
roborate this woman in the fact OF con-
spiracy.
THIS IS A TRIAL BETWEEN CLASSES,
And are we to be brought in here to be
tried by some class? No, gentlemen; we
are to be tried justly in the eyes of the
law. | think the prosecut' m is mistaken
in his estimated power over this jury in
setting forth the conduct and appearance
of the defendant on this witness stand.
! Contrast the conduct OF this cringing slut
OF Il woman upon the stand with the bold,
frank demeanor OF the defendant in his
answers to the myriad OF questions pro-
pounded by the opposite side. Here the
speaker compared the case of the des-
perado John A. Merrill, and stated that
to condemn Brig Hampton for the very
act that made heroes of others was wrong.
Mr.. Hoge arrayed
THE TWO OPPOSING ELEMENTS IN UTAH
To show the existing feeling in this class
of cases. Mr.. Variants eloquent and for
chile remarks were acknowledged by
Hoge TO be superior to any member OF
the bars, and should not he permitted
to bias the minds of the jury. In closing
his speech he told the jury to weigh the
testimony "compassionately" and render
Il verdict accordingly.
MIR. BURMEsTER Is AsToNIsHED.
Mr.. Burmester started out by express
ing his utmost establishment at the speech
delivered by his worthy opponent. He
expected to hear something quiet, modest,
and in the way OF an attempt at facts in
the case. He had been appalled, and
Inundated by tifty-iive minutes OF police
"ourt talk. 1t seemed to him that all
lessons he ever had learned OF the duties
OF peoples prosecutor would have to be
unlearned. The prosecutor should never
descend from his exalted position to hear
abuse upon defendant, and he was over.
whelmingly amazed at the heaping up OF
rubbish and truck by his worthy brother
OF all the perplexing questions even
brought up Tor settlement
CONSPIRACY ADMITS OF THE MOST CON
FUSION.
The speaker read the complaint and
proceeded to explain its every detail
after the manner OF district pedagogue,
asking the jury repeatedly if they caught
the idea. Hampton and Fields are
charged with starting a bawdy house,
which you all understand the meaning
OF. The speaker became enthused with
his subject, and in one broad, sweeping
expression, knocked his hearers cold by
DECLARING THE STATUTE MEANINGLESS
Which relates to the term conspiracy. ~
Why has conspiracy ever been made q
crime at common law? 1t is because
two or more persons combining in the act
OF prostitution endangers the community
by threatenings OF damaging increase.
never could see the difference between
one person running a house OF ill-fame
and the running of such II place by a
hall-dozen. Mr., Burmester showed him
self well up in certain parlancc, and gave
vent to many decidedly new features
in impressing the jury with the fact OF
how little they knew OF the meaning OF
the indictment and OF the statute furnish
ing the same. He himself was com
La Z