The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-02-07

and that 1t was not necessary that he should
board and lodge under the same roof with
or have sexual intercourse with them, If
they so understood they were not misled.
counsel for appellant also assign as error
the giving OF the following as a part of
the charge: "The question, lis were they Iiy-
ing in the habit and repute of marriage1The
offense of cohabltationis complete when
man to all outward appearances, is living or
associating with two or more women as
wives. II the conduct of the defendant has
been such as to lead Ito the belief that the
parties were living as husband and wife
live. then the defendant is guilty" This
paragraph must be considered with the one
in which the jurors were instructed that
they must be satisfied of the defendants
guilt beyond reasonable doubt before they
could convict.
The defendant also excepted to the fol-
lowing clause OF the charge and assigned
the giving thereof as error: "Of course the
defendant might visit his children by the
various women, he may make directions re-
garding their welfare; he may meet the
women on terms of social equality; but if
he associates with them as husband with
his wife, he is guilty. The Edmunds law
says there must be AN end of the relation
ship previously existing between polyga-
mists. 1t says the relationship must cease"
So much of the clause as stated that defen-
dant might visit his children, make direc-
tons regarding their welfare and mightmeet
his wives on terms of social equality was
quite as favorable to the defendant as he
could ask; and the further statement"But if
he associated with them as husband as a
husband with his wife he Is guilty. was a
rather meager statement Of what had
been Stated more fully in the preced ing
part Of the charge. The remark that the
Edmunds law says there must he an end
OF the relationship previously existing
between polygami5ts" and that "it says
that the relationship must ceaSe,n was
evidently made inadvertently. Ii was a
disconnected af1ii nation intended to be
declaration OF the gen raj intent and pur-
pose o. The law known as the Edmunds
law. AS ii staten Mt of the purpose Of the
law 1t was correct. That ACT was doubt
less aimed at poiygamy and intended to
put an end to H.. The statement could
not be understood as definition of the
crime OF unlawful cohHbitatiOn. And the
jury could not have so understood II.
That Oflense had been fully described in
the preceding portion of the charso. We
do not believe that this statement OF the
purpose of the law mIsled the jury and
therefore it is not ground for reversal.
We are of the opinion that the eXcep-
tons OF the defendant to the ruling of The
trial court in admitting and refusing evil
dence are notwell taken.
me action OF the Court III refusing GER
tam requests asked by the defendant is
also assigned as error.
The seconj, third and fifth of them re-
itation as used in the law which the de
PENDANT was charged with violating. That
term was defined in the charge with suf-
fcient ciearness to enable the jury 10 I'M
derstaud its meaning in view OF the evil
dence. In the fourth request certain con-
duct was mentioned that would not con-
stitute the offence and the request was not
necessary to be given.
The sixth refused was given in sub
stance in the charge, so far as it was
proper. And we are of the opinion that
the seventh and eighth requests referred
10 matters, in regard 10 whic CHI it was I'M
necessary 10 charge the jury. The charge
as given covers all the points upon which
it was necessary TO instruct the jury and
was quite full and substantially correct.
After a careful examination of this
record we find no ground sufficient to re-
verse the judgment of the District Court,
and it is therefore affirmed.
POWERS, A. ]. coneurs.
FOREMAN, ]. concurs.