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.. RaWlins and
Mr.. Varian-The Positions Taken
by Each.
The Defendant Sentenced TO Fifteen
Months Imprisonment and
$3.50 Fine.

/ The Third District Court was once NOR
place OF interest this morning, the occa
sion being the opening OF the arguments
: for a new trial in the case of the United
States against Orson Arnold, recently
convicted on three-count Indictment o
unlawful cohabitation.
:. The motion for new trial was based
upon the following grounds:
THAT said verdict is contrary tc
law
2.-That said verdict is contrary to the
evidence.
3.-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-
PENDANT 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-
PENDANT and the second wife had, at a
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 |
lnnocently 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. Mr.. Rawlins
closed his argument by again briefly re-
viewing the evidence and once more ask
ing that new trial be granted.
Mr.. Varian then arose to answer Mr..
Rawlins' argument. He 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 to say anything more about it. He
referred first to the promise made by
Arnold in court. He said that as he
understood it the defendant did not prom
Use not to visit this wife or not to visit
his children, but he did promise so to ,
regulate his affairs that the world would
lot look upon her as his wife. He con-
'eded that the defendant might have ;
light to regulate his visits to suit himself, :
)ut he must be careful to accomplish the ,
md in view. He said that if the situa- +
ION is harsh one the defendant must |
consider that it was a condition that the a
defendant had brought upon himself. He q
aid that the jury must have considered 7
he matter in this way: Here is a man q
Fho has promised to obey the law, but -
e did not promise until the law had
vertaken him dhe was brought before .
he bar to answer for his disobedience. v
his, Mr.. Varian, said was a circum- ;,
tance which the jury had right to con- II
lder. In regard to the trips to Ogden !;
e said that it was not usual for mar =;
led men to take women, not their wives u
visit surrounding towns. 1t would he d
improper, to say the least. He said that ct
UGH an action would lead to serious ~
He said that he did not Law :,
luch stress upon the manner of the
eglstration, but he thought the fact of
leir going there together was weighty
Renaissance. He did not think that
lis occurrence alone should convict. but
was connected with others. He re- re
rred TO the visits to the house as an al
her circumstance, and to the driving
1t with her as third circumstance. He
Id that the explanation of these occur
noes as alone might have been satisfac-
ry, but that as taken in connection with ar
hat had gone before the explanation m
ust have seemed inadequate. He riN
aimed that it was Arnold's duty to tn
AXE 1t more marked than ever that he cel
Is living away from this wife. He said ba
ere was nothing in the appearance of for
conduct which would show the world ate
at there was any change whatever an
their relation toward each other. The niC
Ject was to show that it was no one of by
circumstances but the general line of
nduct which constituted the defense all
closed by saying that unless the evil
nee was entirely incompetent the court
ould not interfere.
Mr.. Rawllns then replied briefly TO mr.,
ne OF the statements made bv Mr.. nv
ran, and the case was submitted. of
The court overruled the motion and the sne
endant was called forward for SEN ito,
Ice. oil
The Judge asked Arnold if he intended ba,
hey the law in the future. chr
Arnold replied that he had tried to fee
y it ever since his promise. suf]
he Judge then said that it was a To >
'shon as to whether the defendant in flor
ded obeying the law according to the Adj
expectation of the Court or according IN
lis own Interpretation. OF; or,
Arnold replied that he did not think
could make any further promises.
he Judge then said that he would n
tence the defendant to pay fine of vol,
-. S"u Sos's Oh each OF the three otht
nc, aru - serve Term OF SIX months by C
1ts I'M In on each Vi She nrst TWO prov