Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-10-08

won't answer any more.
Varian-You are not breaking any law
in answering the question.
Al don't think you have any right te
ask such private questions.
Didn't you live together as hus
band and wife?
Ave lived together as concubine
or wife as the Judge says.
Q.-Then you lived with Lucy as a
concubine, did you?
A.-No, sir; the Court so explains it.
Varian-You are mad, are you, and
only intend to answer such questions as
you see fit?
Ayes. l 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 testi-
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 1 desire to
ask you. Was the testimony of Lucy
Deveraux yesterday false or true?
At was lie.
The witness was excused and the
prosecution rested the case.
Varian-Gentlemen 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 Mr.. Rod
ford, who stated that the defendant and
Kate Newsom were. married and so &C
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
Deveraux fixes the fact beyond 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 his
and Lucy's plural marriage.] Defendant
denies this letter. Newsom says it must
be forgery. 1t does not appear that he
has any enemies who would wickedly per-
petrate such a document to convict him.
The prosecution presented all the facts of
the evidence and asked the jury to pre-
sent a verdict on both counts in the in
dictment.
JUDGE HARNESS
For the defense summed up the case and
said that the defendant and Lucy Dever-
aux, the only two witnesses who know
anything of the marriage, say that they
were united in 1881. He maintained that
the testimony of Lizzie Deveraux was of
no consequence in forming the convic-
ton of the defendant Nothing definite
in relation to this plural marriage was
disclosed in the evidence given by Lizzie,
who only remembered hearing a few
rambling remarks about a we'd
ding having taken place. Lucy
Deveraux showed by her testimony
that she had lived the first two wears Of
her life in Salt Lake at Mrs. Austin's.
This lady became suspicious of Lucy
being married. Newsom saws he met
Lucy while painting house near Mrs.
Austln's, and month afterward they
went through the Endowment House and |
kept it quiet from Mrs. Kate Newsom.
who seemed to have objected to the plural |
Newsom and Lucy confirm
each others testimony relative to the
time OF marriage in 1881, and all |
the circumstances tend to prove it.
Now, regarding this letter which Newsom
denies. 1t is most peculiar letter, and
on the top of it is dated William d. New
som, and is first dated, February Goth.
1881, and then changed to March Sth, of
the same year. This letter shows upon
its face that whoever wrote it preferred to
have it dated March 9Th, instead of the
date scratched out. 1t is addressed TO
my dear mother" and as no other name
occurs in the body of it, s'dear mother"
must refer to w. D. Newsom from the
reading. This singular letter was found
n the hands of the prosection with no
Indications of it ever having been
nailed, save the fact that it is
doubled. There is no proof but that the
defendant might have written this letter
% simply practice his imagination in
writing to himself. Mr.. Miller, called to
the signature, bases his decision
IN the letter en-" which is made in both
ases with an upstroke both in the letter
md IN his signature on the Marshal's nav
oil. This letter is all the evidence in the
world that the marriage took place in
1873. You must find evidence that This
marriage occurred less than three wears
go, and l see no such evidence to war
ant such finding. t
MIR. Kirkparick-The two counts are 6
The first with five years '
Imprisonment and fine of $780, The ]
econd With SIX months imprisonment S
nd fine OF $500. The speaker made L
cry eloquent speech in recounting the
mlted intelligence and easily deluded
lind OF the defendant and his limited /
leans for support. The story told by
Ne prosecution bears the stamp of proba- Z
lie things and not facts. Human nature v
the same the world over, and YOU v
now the motive entertained by the de- T
'ndant and Lucy in secreting the seal i
lg from Kate Newsom. b
This document of suspicion was found
the hands of the prosecution, and God b
lly knows where it was first obtained. s.
Thy don't they explain the source of h
us solitary letter? Newsom says he did b
ot write that letter, and now what is v
1T to establish the fact that this de- e.
ndant has broken any law against "
,lygamy? Is there lin ering in your
lnds any thought of guilt against this
an? Now, gentlemen, the law de- D
ands that if you have reasonable ID ID
'ubt about the guilt of this man, 81
at you find him innocent. Is it the
ovlnce OF jury to convict be- q
use the prosecution demands 10 ~