Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-10-21
ARNOLD SENT UP.
The Motion for New Trial Over
ruled, and an Appeal Denied.
The Arguments of Mr.. Rawllns and
Mr.. Varian-The Positions Taken
by Each.
The Defendant Sentenced TO Fifteen
Months Imprisonment and a
$3.50 Fine.

States against OrSon Arnold, recently
convicted on three-count Indictment Of
unlawful cohabitation.
The motion for new trial was based
upon the following grounds:
THAT said verdict is contrary to
law.
2.-That said verdict is contrary to the
evidence.
THAT the Court misdirected the jury
in matters OF law, and erred in the decis-
ion OF questions OF law arising during the
course OF the trial.
Mr. Rawlins opened the argument in
behalf OF Arnold. He began by refer
ring to the meaning OF the term cohab-
itation, saying that there must be some
evidence OF Cohabitation outside OF mere
association. OF course men and women
may walk together, they may ride to-
gether in the same car, or they may even
dwell together, and this alone will not
constitute cohabitation. While it is true
that the jury are the sole judges of the
credibility OF the witnesses, they must
have some reason for disbelieving the
witness, and they had no right to disre-
gard the evidence given when there was
none to the contrary. Now, besides this
evidence of association, there must be
something to show the relation OF mar
riage between the two. l know that on
this point it will be claimed that the de-
fendant was some years before married
to one Fanny Linnell, and that for some
time prior to the time named in the
indictment he lived with her as his wife.
Now this is true, but the continuation
OF this relation must be proven.
He then went on to state that while the
prosecution had right to Put leading
questions to the witnesses, they had no
right to impeach them, because by their
introducing these witnesses they vouched
for their credibility. He next referred to
the testimony to the effect that the de-
iendant and the second wife had, at
time prior to the time mentioned in the
indictment, agreed to abandon the rela-
ton OF husband and wife, and that they
had lived up to the agreement. He also
referred to the promise that Arnold had
made in court. He said that in the
closing argument the prosecution had
claimed that since there was evidence OF
association, the only way the defendant
could have avoided this indictment was
to have come into court and invoked the
aid OF the court to nullify the illegal mar
rage between himself and Fanny Linnell.
MIR. Rawlins argued at some length on
this point, claiming that the law,
under which a. man could not live
innocently without the aid OF another,
would be very absurd law. He said
that the law had made these children
legitimate in order that the father might
take proper care OF them, and that the
law intended that the father should treat
them as his legal children. MIR. Rawllns
closed his argument by again briefly re-
viewing the evidence and once more ask
ing that new trial be granted.
Mr.. Narlan then arose to answer Mr..
Rawllns argument: lie SAID there had
been so much SAID IN regard to the
relation OF persons in the position OF the
defendant that it seemed like idle cere-
monY 10 say anything more about 1t. lie
referred first to the promise made by
Arnold in court. lie said that as he
understood 1t the defendant did not prom
Use not to visit tins wife or not to visit
his children, but he did promise so to
regulate his affairs that the world would
not look upon her as ms wife. lie con-
ceded that the defendant might have a
right TO regulate ms visits to suit himself,
but ne must be careful to accomplish the
ehu In view. lie SAID that II the sltua-
ton Is harsh one the. defendant must
consider that 1t was condition that the
defendant had brought upon himself. lie
SAID that the Jury must have considered
the matter IN TINS way Here IS man
VINO mas promised to obey the law, but
he did not promise until the law had
oVertaken nm and he was brought before
the bar to answer Tor his dlsobedience.
Ihls, Mr., Narian, SAID was clrcum-
stance which the jury had right to con-
slider. In regard TO the trips to Ogden
he SAID that 1t was not usual Tor mar
ried men 10 take women, not their wives,
TO visit surrounding towns. 1t would be
improper, to say the least. lie said that
such an acton would lead to serious
comments. lie SAID that he did not lay
much stress upon the manner OF the
registration, but he thought the fact OF
their going there together was Il weighty
circumstance. lie did not think that
this occurrence alone should convict, but
II was connected with others. He re-
ferred to the visits to the house as an
other circumstance, and to the driving
out with her as third circumstance. He
said that the exp anation OF these occur
rences as alone might have been satisfac-
tory, but that as taken in connection with
what had gone before the explanation
must have seemed inadequate. He
claimed that 1t was Arnold's duty to
make it more marked than ever that he
was living away from this Wife He said
there was nothing in the appearance OF
his conduct which would show the world
that there was any change whatever
IN their relation toward each other. The
OBJECT was to show that it was no one OF