Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-08-15
STANDS COMMITTED.
Eliza Shaffer, Who "Declines to AM
swer," Sentenced to Fine and
Imprisonment.
Commissioner Mckay Gives Lengthy
Opinion as to the Powers OF
Commissioners.
The Sentence Suspended Until Judge
Zane Shall Rlle on Habeas
Corpus.

The case of the United States against
John w Smell for unlawful Capitalization,
with all the witnesses and attorneys pres
emf. was before Commissioner Mckay
this morning at 10 o'clock, to hear the
decision in the matter of contempt of Count
charged against Eliza Schaffer. The
Court said 81 am of the opinion that the
decision committing Miss Schaffer for
contempt of Court will stand.'
THE SILENT WITNESS WAS CALLED FORWARD
And asked the two following questions,
which were propounded last Wednesday,
10 which Miss Shaffer declined to an
swer:
"Have YOU ever occupied the same bed
with him? If so, during what time ?'
Declined to answer.
"Haye YOU and he not been living to-
gether in the relation OF husband and
wife in the plural or celestial marriage
during the past three years.
Declined to answer.
Commissioner-It appears TO the Court
that YOU are guilty of contempt, and it is
the order of the Court that you pay
A FINE OF $25 AND BE IMPRISONED ONE
DAY,
And stand committed until the fine is
paid.
Mr.. Kirkpatrick-Can the Court COM
nit person for contempt where no mar
rage relation has been proven to exist?
Commissioner think the decision
will stand.
Standardization the decision OF the
Supreme Court, it is hard to state exactly
what has been specifically done for these
cases.
Here some discussion arose between
Mr.. Kirkpatrick for the defense and
Prosecuting Attorney Varian pertaining
to the Interpretation of the law relative to
the commitment for contempt. Agreeable
to the attorneys the Court postponed the
infliction OF punishment on Miss Shaffer
until such time as Judge Zane re-
turns from out of the city. Then the
defense will probably apply for the re-
lease of the witness from the Marshal's
custody on a writ of habeaS corpus.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER.
Before VIM. Mckay, Esq, Commissioner
of the Supreme Court Of the Territory
of Utah:
The United States
VS.. Contempt.
Eliza Shaffer.
The defendant is witness subpenaed
by the prosecution in the case OF the
United States VS.. John W. Smell, who is
charged with the crime of unlawful CO.
habitation, under section of the Ed
munds bill.
During the progress of the examina-
ton of the case against Smell, it was in
evidence that one Emma Smell, who was
present at the hearing, was then and dur
ing the period covered by the complaint,
the legal wife of the defendant.
There was also evidence tending to
show that within the time specified in the
complaint, the defendant Smell was living
portion of that time with the witness
Shaffer.
These matters are only important in
this connection, as bearing upon the com
potency of the witness, and the relevancy
of the questions put to her by the Dis
trict Attorney, and hereinafter set forth,
and the materiality OF such answers as
might be given in response thereto.
The witness having been called to the
stand and duly sworn, the following
questions, among others not necessary
to specify, were asked her by Mr.. Varian,
the District Attorney:
First-Have you ever occupied the same
bed with him. Meaning the defendant If
so, during what time?
Second-Have you and he, (meaning the
defendant not been living together in the
relation of husband and wife, in plural or
celestial marriages during the past three
years?
To each and both of said questions, the
witness refused and declined to answer,
and when Intercepted by the Commits
sioner as to whether she had any excuse
or reason to offer for refusing and declin-
ing to answer said questions or either of
them, the witness replied: "None which
wish to state"
The Commissioner thereupon instructed
the witness that the questions were proper
questions, and that she ought to answer
them, and directed her to do so, and she
again refused and declined to make answer
as before.
Thereupon the District Attorney moved
that the witness be adjudged to be in
contempt, and that she he committed
therefor until she answer the questions.
1t was here objected by Mr. Kirkpatrick
as counsel for the witness, that the order
asked for by the District Attorney was
not within the jurisdiction of the Com
missioner.
The question of the Commissioners au-
thority to punish for contempt has been
fully argued by Mr.. Varian in favor of
the exercise of that power, and by Mr..
Kirkpatrick against it.
To ascertain whether the power exists.
reference must be had to both National
and Territorial legislation. 1t depends
entirely upon statutory enactment.
The Office of Commissioner was created
by the Act of February Goth, 1912. At first
its duties were limited to taking acknowl-
edgment of bail and affidavits.
BY sundry subsequent acts his powers
have been greatly enlarged. Several of
these acts are now embodied in Section
l OLA of the Revised Statutes. wherein it |
is provided that:
For any crime or offence against the |
United States, the offender NAV, by anv |
Justice or Judge of the United States, or by |
any Commissioner of a Circuit Court to take !
bail, or by any Chancellor Judge of Su- !
preme or Superior Court, Chief or first judge /
of Common Pleas, Mayor of CITY or Justice |
of the Peace, or other Magistrate of any State
where he may be found
be arrested, imprisoned
or bailed as the case may be, for trial before
such court as by law has cognizance of the
offence
By Section 6 of an Act of Congress
IAN Act in relation to Courts
and Judicial Officers in the Territory of
Utah, approved June 23d, 1874, it is pro-