Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-09-02
HABEAS CORPUS CASES.
Herbert FOulger Turns Ont a BIOated
BOndhOlder and is Remanded
to Custody,
W. II. Lees Property Protected BY the
Homestead Act-He is
Discharged.
The Hearing Of the Case Against John
p. Ball--A Recess Taken.

ger, w. H. Lee and John P. Ball, askin;
for writ of habeas corpus in their case:
were opened by Mr.. Moyle, before Judg,
Zane in the Federal Court chambers yes
terday afternoon, but the lateness of the
hour prevented Mr.. Variants making hi
reply, and an adjournment was taken I'M
til 10 o'clock this morning.
THE LEE CASE
Was the one argued by Mr.. Moyle, yes
terday, and this morning Mr.. Varian be-
gan his reply. He explained the condi,
ton of Mr.. Lees estates, showing that
he owns a lot in the town ofTooele, upon
which is situated his house and
appurtenances, and that beside this he
| 1.-THE detendant) owns tract of
twenty-five acres of land situated about
one mile distant from the house. The
position taken by Mr.. Varian was, this
second tract, not having a dwelling house
upon it, could not be properly considered
as part of the homestead. He quoted
numerous authorities in support of his
position, but at the same time admitted
that the statutes of some of the States
did not require all the land of
homestead to be contiguous. He
claimed that the law did not
intend to provide for the support of the
family when it exempted certain part
OF the property, but it simply guaranteed
roof Tor shelter to them. Further, he
did not consider it enough to merely
prove it to be homestead according to
the law, but there should be some evil
dence of this fact, so that creditors might
not be deceived. He explained the law
on the point, which does not require that
a man shall have enough money to paw
the fine, but simply says that if he has
more than $40 exclusive of property ex-
empt from execution, he can be held for
the amount of the fine and costs. On
these grounds he claimed that there was
no reason why the prisoners petition
should be granted, and that the Commits
sioner was right in refusing to discharge
him.
Mr.. Richards, for the petitioner, closed
with brief argument. He said that the |
question was simply whether the law |
merely to protect citizen from |
being turned out into the street. or
whether it intended to protect him from
hunger and other suffering. He claimed |
that the latter was the case. He then
argued that our statute on the subject
was not Identical with, or even similar to.
that OF any other State or Territory, in
that its limit was decided by the value of
the property and not by its relative posi-
lion. The Territorial statute states clearly
hat the homestead shall consist of such
ands as are used for home and for the
lses of the occupants, and it was on this
point that Richards won the case.
The Judge reviewed the evidence and
he arguments. He said that ordinarily.
he homestead was in one compact piece,
lut under the statute this did not seem
o be necessary requirement. He con-
ldered that the law intended to furnish
he debtor with food and subsistence as
veil as with a mere shelter. He con- !
ldered that the petitioner was qualified s
o take the oath, and he therefore ordered
hat the petition be granted and the
prisoner discharged.
THE FOULGER CASE. .
In this case it was shown by the testi- !
lony OF the prisoner himself that he had =
wned considerable property a short time +
e1ore his conviction, of which he had
onsldered 1t advisable to dispose before
is incarceration. Before his arrest he
ad sold his first wife real estate valued
$500 for the consideration of 81, He r
ad also transferred to her notes. secured ?
Y mortgages, to the amount of $500. In
EDITION to this he had given his first wife y
deposit check on u. G. NJ. |. for 5000 E
rawing interest at the rate of 6 per cent, N
e was arrested on the 3lst of October N
last year, and few DAYS afteward. on Il
about November 4th, he had trans L
rred to his wife Coop stock TO the ~
Mount of 81 1928. Previous to his arrest 6
mad also given his second wife house NJ
ID lot: lie explained this unseeming N
neroslty on his part as follows: envy n,
eged second wife had asked me to set n,
some property upon her, and | gave Nj
r the house and lot, and then as I D;
shed to do as well by my first wife. | D.
ade the transfer to her." Foulger de- Ds
clared that he had no idea of evading De
payment of his fine, but that it was Ia
nply for the benefit of his wife and
nily. anu
Mr.. Moyle made a brief address. in
UGH he claimed that his client had an
'ently disposed of his property in a loy
y innocent manner, with no intention :
fraud, and he therefore asked that he Pa
:.
1t this point the Judge stated that if Cit
useless to argue the case any fur ]
r; that the prisoner could pay the fine Sto
y easily if he chose to do SO, and His {
nor therefore remanded him back to cou
custody of the Marshal. ]
THE BALL CASE Gao
his case was next taken up, and the
oner Ball was put upon the stand. 10.
SAID that his house and lot was deed a
o 1.-THE women" He has a store CON AUS
ing goods to the amount of $3.50. and tees
has about the same amount of ont
ding accounts, which he has never
mpted to collect. He is indebted TO Ha'
rent parties to this same amount Bar
which, by the way, seemed to be q and
rite sum with the witness. His house The
worth about 81 200, and it was as viii
ed at 81 600, contrary to the usual mel
Oh assessing property at about half the
aIue' sple
r. Varlan said that he would like 70 lake
he testimony of the assessor on this with
{, ana recess was therefore taken light
2 o'clock. the
ter thorough examination of the
1t was found that the prisoner had
property not exempt, and he was TIL
efore DISCHARGED oro