Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-11-20
JUNCTION JOTTINGS.
Yesterdays work i'm the First Dis
trIct Court-GeneraI Notes.

nal in their places, the jury in their seats,
a moderate sprinkling Of attorneys and
reporters within the bar, and slim
crowd in the audience. The minutes be-
ing read and the jury called, the case
against Susan Parry for perjury was
resumed The Court held as to the OBJ
jections raised yesterday by the defense,
with regard to the extent of the applca
ton OF the oath taken before a United
States Grand Jury in Territorial cases,
that it was not valid under the statutes.
Peter J. Nelson, Of Logan, was ar
raigned on three indictments presented
by the Grand Jury on the 10Th Of July |
last, charging him with the forgery OF
a certificate Of ASSAY. He pleaded not .
guilty.
The perjury case was resumed. o. f.. |
Hill was the first witness. Had been |
clerk of the Grand Jury which found the |
Indictment Kimball again raised the
point that the indictment was found at a |
day (Feb. IS, 1885, when the November |
term had expired and the February term |
at Provo was to begin by statutory provi.
sion, on the 18th, so that, as counsel |
claimed, the Grand Jury's jurisdiction |
had lapsed The Judge deferred his de-
cision on the objection and the testimony |
continued. Defendant had testified be- |
fore the Grand Jury as to the age OF her
Youngest child from one Joseph Parry
against whom there was then an investi-
CATION for unlawful cohabitation going on
The alleged wives Of Joseph Parry NOW
on the U. ca were Olive Ann Parry and
the defendant. Before the Grand Jury
Il lol hot hnr
child was "about 3 years DID," or
"a little over 8 wears" She had
answered this same question several
times.
Other witnesses called were Vic. Bier
bower, Esq. who was prosecuting attor-
ney ut the time OF the investigation in
question; John w. McNutt, foreman OF
that Grand Jury, both OF whom corrobor-
ated the deposition of the first witness,
viz: that the defendant had given the
baby's age as three years and over. Also
Drs. j. III. Allen and J.. Anderson testi-
fed, but did not remember" very much,
the former thinking the child might have
been between two and three years old.
The defense here moved that the case be
dismissed there being but one witness as
to the age of the child Before ruling on
this motion, the Judge adjourned court
till 2 80 p. IN.
At the afternoon session the Susan
Parry perjury case was resumed. Testi-
mony was given Counsel for defense OBJ
jecting and exception being noted) by
Mrs. Lucy S. Anderson, whose evidence
was essential that the defendant had
child born in the fall OF 1884. Witness
saw the baby in September or October OF
that year, when she judged it to be about
three weeks old. This witness advanced
very damaging evidence, being positive
about the identity of the child.
Mrs. Aurelia Wright, ssterinla OF
the defendant, was the next witness
She did not "know" whom she defend
anti was married to, but supposed"
Joseph Parry was her husband. This
witness did not know although visiting
at defendants house "of and on")
judged the youngest child's age at about
or nearly three years. Did not think the
child was three years old on the 18th OF
February last.
Mrs. Samantha Farrell had first OBJ
served the defendants delicate condition
in July, 1884, and had seen the child
afterwards. Joseph Parry's reputed re-
laton to Susan was that of husband.
More evidence was given by T. A. Per-
kins, who judged the childs age as a lit
tie over two years. The prosecution
rested and there was Il recess of ten
minutes, after which the defendant, WISH
bly, affected by the harsh ordeal she is
undergoing under pressure OF the soul
blasting system OF priestcraft, took the
witness stand. She had been subpnnaed
at 40 Il. m, on February 18th, 1884, to
appear before the Grand Jury, and re-
sponded to the call at once. She was
considerably excited in the jury room,
where she was asked about the ages OF
her oldest and youngest children. The
latter Henry Grover was two years old
last October. To the jury she had given
a wrong age, merely through excitement,
not then realizing the consequence of her
giving false statement, nor the bearing
OF her answer. Defendant testified she
had, within short time after the testi-
mony given by her, stated that she chad
made 4 mistake" On this pivot the
wheel OF the defense appeared to turn
The prosecuting attorney resisted the
attempts OF the defense to show mental
confusion and ignorance OF the law on
the part OF the defendant, who on cross
examination acknowledged to be the
wife OF Joseph Parry, who had also an
OtiiCl WIG OllNG LAIll' one UeIlltu
ever having been advised, counseled or
instructed as to the purport OF her test-
mony(D. The emotions OF the situation
overcoming the defendant, recess of
ten minutes was taken, but she not
recovering, the court was adjourned till
morning.
The opening OF the court at 80 a. m.
is not likely to prove strict success. 1t
is somewhat OF hardship on the Jury
men and witnesses from the OUTLYING set
Elements, who can hardly return home so
late in the evening and be back so early
in the morning, especially with the insig-
nitcant remuneration and the slim
chances for payment OF that pittance
even. But then, citizens have duties to
perform as well as rights to enjoy.
In the item about the majority of f. c.
Helfrlch for member OF the Idaho Legis.
lature from Alturas county, it should
have read GIG" instead of 776. Not
that we would begrudge Ed such rous-
ing upper hand, on the very contrary
but figures should not though they some
times do, lie. But Ed got there" any
how, with As strong a majority as any
Democrat ever got in the county, and we
once more congratulate him.
Judge ii. Z. Henderson is becoming
! more and more popular with the bar, the
| Jurors the litipantg tbn 1afapInptg ,,,.i