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

DHil-A htttSS
The petitions filed by Herbert j. Foul
ger, w. II. Lee and John p. Ball, asking
for writ of habeas corpus in their cases
were opened by Mr.. Moyle, before Judge
Zane in the Federal Court chambers yes
terday afternoon, but the lateness Of the
hour prevented Mr.. Variants making his
reply, and an adjournment was taken un-
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 lot in the town OF Tooele, upon
which is situated his house and
appurtenances, and that beside this he
(the defendant) 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 dwelling house
upon it, could not be properly considered
as part of the homestead. He quoted
numerous authorities in support of his
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
q roof for 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
man shall have enough money to pay
the fine, but simply says that if he has
more than $50 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
intended 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-
ton. The Territorial statute states clearly
that the homestead shall consist of such
lands as are used for home and for the
uses of the occupants, and it was on this
point that Richards won the case.
The Judge reviewed the evidence and
the arguments. He said that ordinarily,
the homestead was in one compact piece,
but under the statute this did not seem
to be a necessary requirement. He con-
sidered that the law intended to furnish
the debtor with food and a subsistence as
we'll as with mere shelter He con-
sidered that the petitioner was qualified
to take the oath, and he therefore ordered
that the petition be granted and the
prisoner discharged.
THE FoULGER CASE.
! In this case it was shown by the testi-
mony of the prisoner himself that he had
owned considerable property short time
before his conviction, of which he had
considered it advisable TO dispose before
his incarceration. Before his arrest he
had sold his first wife real estate valued
at $500 for the consideration OF 81. He
had also transferred to her notes, secured
by mortgages, to the amount of $500. In
addition to this he had given his first wife
a deposit check on q. @. M. |. for 5000,
drawing interest at the rate of per cent.
He was arrested on the 3lst of October
of last year, and few days afteward, on
or about November 4th, he had trans
ferred to his wife Coop stock to the
amount of 81 1928. Previous to his arrest
he had also given his second wife house
and lot. He explained this unseeming
generosity on his part as follows: "My
alleged second wife had asked me to set
tie some property upon her, and l gave
her the house and lot, and then as |
wished to do as well by my first wife, l
made the transfer to her." Foulger de-
declared that he had no idea OF evading
the payment OF his fine, but that it was
simply for the benefit of his wife and
family.
Mr.. Moyle made a brief address, in
which he claimed that his client had APP
parently disposed OF his property in a
very innocent manner, with no intention
of fraud, and he therefore asked that he
be discharged.
AT this point the Judge stated that it
was useless to argue the case any tur-
Their; that the prisoner could pay the fine
very easily if he chose to do SO, and His
Honor therefore remanded him back to
the custody OF the Marshal.
THE BALL CASE.
This case was next taken up, and the
prisoner Ball was put upon the stand.
He said that his house and lot was deed
ed to "the women" lie has store con-
tanning goods to the amount Of $3.50, and
he has about the same amount OF out
standing accounts, which he has never
attempted to collect. He is indebted to
different parties to this same amount
| $350-which, by the way, seemed to be
favorite sum with the witness. His house
was worth about 81 200, and it was as
sessed at $1,000, contrary to the usual
rule of assessing property at about half
its value.
Mr.. Varian said that he would like to
get the testimony Of the assessor on this
point, and a recess was therefore taken
until 2 o'clock.
After thorough examination OF the
case, it was found that the prisoner had
l..