The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-10


There is no possibility of rue being ms
taken; that declaration was made be-
fore left him and Sears together.
Mr. MCKAY-Was there anything
said about either of you to call out such
an expression?
All was said in an interesting
manner. as much as t. say he was sur
prised that l did not know that Louie
was his wife
This brought the case to an end for
the prosecution, and it terminated very
abruptly.
Mr.. RICHARDS offered a certified copy
OF the proceedings in the divorce court.
and announced that they rested. -
Mr. Dickson argued that there we're
but two conclusions to draw from
the evidence that rad been pre-
sented-either that he had. married
Louie Wells prior to the Iuth day OF
September, 1885, and committed adult
cry with some othar woman or that
Louie was the guilty woman he was
inclined to take the more charitable
view OF 1t We have her sworn teS-
tlmonv that she was not the woman.
and l do not believe that she was !;
rather do l believe that the act was
committed with another woman whose
name will be never known He then
reviewed the case as. brought out by the
evidence, from the time of the confess
sion to the present day and
said he did not for mome"t
believe that it wRs ssible
for any msn or any woman, or men and
women, who could be guilty OF so many
acts OF cruelty as they must have been,
had the stories told by the wit
nesses so far introduced ben
true. The whole story was i'm
probable; it was so improbable that
be did not for a moment believe it.
Then again, the divorce presented
was null and void. 1t was pity that
there was no law that might reach the
judge that granted it. and punish him
for his official transgression. The en-
tire proceedings were so illegal az to ex-
cite the suspicion of any judge or any
lawyer. That paper has no more
validity than if Judge Smith had sat on
hydrant and written it. There was no.
court, there was no clerk; and Cannon
had not consented that the case could
could be heard in chambers. There
was collision. and it was wick d
collision in which the defendants wife
Annie was party. The Judge did not
sit there as a judge-aHd his acts on
the day on which it is claimed TIE di-
vorce was granted are no more binding
than if they had never been issued al
all. Judge Smith says he has granted
other divorces in a similar way. If he
has, then | Sa that he is unworthy to
hold the Office Of Judge of the Probate
Court. He omitted to ask the proper
questions of the complainant, and if be
had asked such questions, the answers
must have been such as would
have precluded the granting of
a divorce. The decree Is void upon
its face for several other reasons. The
waiver was va!ueless. The defendant
had bv law ten DAYS in which to appear
and decree granted before that time
would be void. / am willing and glad
to believe that Louie is not the guilty
woman. She has sworn that she was
not. and am gladsof it. He then re-
ferred to the letter handed in by Mr..
Wood i which the defendant said:
Louie is about TO follow in the steps
of her sister Annie and procure di-
vorce from me. know they are right
and l can only mutely acquiesce.' I'm
less we believe that he lied on both ocCa
sions-When he talked with MIR. Wood
and when be wrote the letter TO him we
must know that he is guilty OF poly
gamy.
Mr.. RICHARDS answered By. saying:
"0f cours ;, the story is incredible. Such
cases as this are always incredible u
nay friend, the district attorney. But
We have evidence that cannot De gotten
over, no matter how much the gentle
man on the other side OF
the case may strive. He says
the divorce papers are Invalid. But
] do not believe it. Major Woods Ies-
tImony was that the defendant was suf-
fering from great mental distress when
he visited the defendant, AMI even
ii he did say that you
must know that Louie is my
wife" it should have but very little bear
ing on the matter. He might have said
that she was, and yet not have told the
truth. The pTeponderance Of evidence
in favor of the defendant should be
taken into consideration and is of such
a character that cannot be easily be got
ten over. believe that it is quite pos
sible that Major Woods might have
been mistaken. But even II defendant
made either or both statements they
should not be allowed here as evidence.
/ certainly did not expect such propo-
sition as that coming from my friend,
the District Attorney, in reference to
the divorce papers. If the actions of a
court are null and void because Of the
absence of q clerk, then the District
Court Judge could be called to account
in the same manner. am sorry that
the District Attorney has gone out of
his way to abuse Judge Smith. But
those utterances do not need an answer.
The reputation of the Judge in regard
to honesty, probity and integrity in
this community, is sufficient answer
to them.
Mr.. DICKSON said he did not say that
the evidence of collision, would ia
validate the divorce. He Did not go
outside of the evidence to attack
Judge Smith. l know nothing against
his private character or his past life. /
said his actions in this case deserved
public condemnation and say so now
l say that Judge Smith had no more
authority. sitting IN chambers, to sever
the bonds between husband and wife, |
than have, than Mr.. Richards has, or
than private citizen had.
Mr., RlcHARDs-Let me ask you
whether, in case the clerk had been Ill
the court room, and had gone out for a
moment, and that during his absence
the divorce was granted, would it not
have been regular?