The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-11-25

enter into a polygamous marriage?
Objection bv the defense aud the OBJ
lection sustained.
| Q Having entered into a polyga-
nous marriage, DO you believe It right
/ - do So7
Question ruled as improper.
Q.-Having entered into n nolyga-
nous marriage with the defendant. do
you believe 1t right 10 live with him?
Al think--I should think we ought
to obey the law.
Witness said that as a prirci-
pie OF simple right and wrong
aside from the Jaw, she De
hevcd Il right, but she had no osca-
Son TO violate the law and would not 90
so. When went 10 the theatre with
Mr.. Farr, he came over 70 ask nv
daughter 70 go TO the theatre, and i
asked 20 be permitted 20 accompany
them.
Mas. ASS JONES FARR recalled. The
questions as 70 her residence which
were answered yesterday, were put and
answered. There was nc change made
in our mode Of life; but two years ago
moved 10 the farm. To Mr.. KimbaIl
she said that she lived alone in tue back
part of the holse, ct the corner of First
and Main; there was no inside COM
munication between the two parts of
the house. Lived alone there. Mr..
Farr Gid not keep any of his personal
property or wearing apparel in my
house. One morning. however, he
went iIto my house to get my son TO
assist him 10 put his overcoat on. did
not see Mr.. Farr at that time, except
Just as he was coming out Of the door.
Mr.. Emmertsen was there after washing
az the lime. Mr.. Farr had not occupied
bed in my house for i've years or
more.
The prosecution here announced that
they rested their case. but Mr.. Kimball
requested further cross-e1amination
OF the witness Emmertsen, and II was
agreed that this should close the case.
J. p. EMAEBTsEd was recalled
and examined by Mr.. Kimball
as to the occasion of Mr.. Fairs
having got q coat out of the room
at Mrs. Ann Jones. R1rT's and putting
IL on. Witness said that Mr.. Farr went
into the room irons the porch in his
shirt sleeves and passed through oRs
room into another add got a coat and
put il on. This closed the case for the
prosecution and g recess Of fifteen
minutes was taken.
At the resuming Of the session the
first count in the indictment against
Mr.. Farr was dismissed.
Mas. NANCY c. FsiER, the legal wife,
was called by the defense-Reside at
the old home at the corner Of First and
Main Streets. Mr.. Parr has lived there
all the time since 1Ss2; know the ladies
named as Mr.. Fairs plaral wives
he has never lived with or
acknowledged them, as his WINS
since 1882; Ann Jones Farr lived in
part of the old house until about sTo
years ago; there is no Communication
between the two parts Of the house;
Mr.. Farr has kept AIS personal effects
and bedroom in my part OF the house
Mr.. Farr has not lived with Ann Jones
Farr since 1882.
Cross-examined: Q,-When did Mr..
tsrr cease living With his plural wives ?
AT the passage of the Edmunds
law, in 50; Mr.. FAIR has always bad his
home with me; he has never visited
the other ladies since 50, except to give
directions concerning his business.
ELIJAH FAIR, ason of the defendant,
was called: Liv3r with my mother,
Nicotine Farr; ny, father lives across
the street from or house: Mr.. Farr
has not lived at my mothers house
since 50. Witness then answered que9-
tons showing that be had been engaged
at work for his father. Mr.. Farr called
at my house very frequently to talk
about business aHIrs; he takes an &C
casiOnal meal theirs at request; there is
no regularity abSUt these visits. Have
never seen him to have any association
with my mother. he would have no
more rights 10 go into our house than
would friend. Nv mother is the head
of the household; there is no gentleman
head 70 the house 20 my knowledge.
Court then took q recess till O'Clock
p. m.
When the session was resumed,
DR.. ULRICH was called and testified
Live in Ogden: Know the defendant;
have been his family physician. Gen
orally found Mr.. Earr at the places of
the various ladies named as his wives in
cases Of sickness IN the families. Since
the passage OF the Edmunds law have
attended Mrs. Mary Ann Farr. The
defendant never took any charge Of nor
directed in these cases of sickness;
thought I observed ! change in Mr.
Fairs manner in such cases OF sickness
he acted very much like q neighbOr
would. The witness started 10 say that
ne and Mr.. Farr had talked about the
Edmunds law, and was about 20 proceaE
to tell what the conversation was.
when Mr.. Hiles objected and.
he ceased. Mr.. lilies QUESTIONED
the witness soen cerning who he wcGid
have looked TO for payment Of bills had
they remained unpaid. The witness
replied that he had been instructed as
to who would pay the bills and under
the circumstances he should certainly
not have presented them TO Mr.. FAIR.
AsAL FAIR, son OF the defsnsara and.
Ann Jones Farr, was the next witness
He testified 10 having helped his father
put his overcoat on az the time Mr..
Emmertsen was in the house. During
the crOss-eXamination IL traospired
that the witness was in the court
room during q portion OF Tuesday
aud NJ. Hiles moved TO have his
testimony stricken from ths record.
The motion was overruled.
The witness was cross examined at
considerable length but nothing further
OF importance was elected.
THOMAS FAIR vas the next witness
He testified 70 having been employed
by his father, the defendant, and as to
his father calling upon him occasion
ally on business matters. Mr.. Farr
bad the reputation in. tie family o
nEat-s-g - Edrpuurz faz He has