The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-01
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT.
Assistant District AttOrne Hiles
SummariIy Sat Down Upon.

In the case of the United States VS.
LOveridge, indictment for unlawful Co
habitation. called yesterday at 3.15 pm,
defense objected to the indictment, on
the ground that the only witness en-
dorsed upon the indictment was the de-
PENDANT himself. Mr.. Kimball 70
Ogden) made an argument against it's
suficiency.
Mr.. HIles, Assistant District Attorney,
stated that the objection was captious
and should be summary sat down up
on; that it had been the practice in
some instances for the defendant to
seek to go upon the witness stand for
the prosecution. He characterized it
as trick or nasty bubble and should
not Ue countenanced by the court.
S. Thurman, Esq. for the defense
replied to the argument of Mr.. Hiie,
instanter-with a burst of eloquence
and indignity at the way the District
Attorney had been trying all day to
override them. He said: I have no
doubt that If the District Attorney had
/ it in his power he would summarily sit
down upon the proposition advanced,
and every other proposition that would,
in the least degree, afford the defend
| ant q far trial, but I think however,
/ that your honor Is upon the bench in
stead of the District Attorney. He
! He stated that until this day in this
/ end Of the district in all the cases of
/ this class the defendant had VOluntar-
/ lily gone upon the stand and made his
statement with the view OF not subject
! ing his family to the annoyance of au-
swering improper questions to the Pros
sCuting Attorney. That in all such
cases the defendant had been convicted :;
that the utmost good faith had been
given, and in the light OF experience
there was no cCasion for the ground
made by the District Attorney. But in
! the case of MIR. Kirkwood, which had
Just been tried, the defendant had made
| the same offer with the same purpose
in view, which offer had been rejected
By the Prosecuting Attorney, that the
I District Attorney had called for the at
tachment of witnesses in that case and
had paraded them before the Grand
Jury, and then intimateS that The wit
nesses were absent, possibly, by the
procurement of the defendant himself
Mr.. Thurman stated that it was
unfair and unjust and intended only to
/ prejudice the minds OF the jury against
the defendant, and because of this I'M
! just and unfair proceeding on the part
of the District Attorney the defendant
now demanded at the hands of the
! Caurt his legal rights, and proposed 10
/ stand upon whatever rights he was en-
titled to under the law. He demanded
| that this indictment be quashed, set
aside and dismissed, for the reason that
! IL was not found on legal evidence; for
The reason that it was patent upon the
! face OF the Indictment that the evidence
! upon which 1t was found was inSUftic-
| lent to convict; that tine confession or
admission of the defendant is never suf-
ticlent IN any case to sustain a verdict
OF CONVICTION; that there must be cor
roboranye proof of the corpus deficit; ;
that in these cases, the defendant being
the only witness examined before the
Grand Jury, we must presume that his
admission or confession, or whatever 1t
may ne termed, was unsupported by
any other evidence whatever. (And the
Court strongly intimaIed that he was
IN accord with that view, and under
stood that the rule of law
In reply, the district attorney-lack-
ing the manhood to confess the point
asked for the indictment TO be dis
missed on other grounds, saying there
were other points in which it were de-
fcient. He seemed TO acknowledge the
nasty bubble and was "summarily
sat down on" himself.
The attorneys for the defense in their
cross mean to maintain their grounds
upon the sound basis of law and not be
tTodden down by any spurious" adVo-
cate clothed as he is with ''stars and
moon" ideas of justice. and overlooking
the common rules OF jurisprudence.
3. W.
Provo, September %, 1886.