The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-05-21
BEFORE POWERS.
Mrs. Parry Arraigned on a
New Indictment.
BERGEN'S CASE DISMISSED,
George C. Wood Pleads Gully
General Notes.

ing, the sweat box used as a court
room by the First District Court, was
only partially filed. There were pres
ent in the bar the usual complement OF
attorneys, and W. II. Dickson. George
c. Woods and John Bergen. After the
reading of the journal,
MRS. SUSAN PARRY
was arraigned on a new indictment
FOUND against her, charging her with
perjury. Mr.. John \. Kimball, attor-
ney for the defense, stated that they
would take the statutory time to plead.
Trial was set for Monday morning. at
10 O'Clock Mrs. Parry was admitted
70 bail IN the sum of 5000. w. II.
Wright, q. J. Wright. George II. Tribe
and l. ID. Dee becoming her suretie--
JOHN BERGEN
was called, aud entered a plea of not
guilty to the indictment charging him
with committing the crime of polyg-
any.
GEORGE c. WOOD
Was next asked to stand up and plead
10 a similar indictment. In answer to
the question Of the clerk as to what his
plea was. Mr.. Wood answered guilty"
The CoURT-"Do you enter this plea
voluntarily
WooDs-"Yes. sir"
Sentence will be passed on Saturday.
May 10Th.
The jury was then called IN
THE CASE or JOHN BERGEN.
The following we-e called: W. P.
Jones. p. II. LETTERS. Adam Kuhn. n.
Montgomery, c. P. Jennings. T. Z.
Blackman. Il. w. Lashus. z. b. Hop
ki1s, John Huss. S. 81. Giesy. ]. G.
Armstrong and Charles Harris. Mr..
Montgomery went down on the first
question of Mr.. Dickson. The rest of
the jury passed the prosecutors ques-
tons, but Mr.. Giesy went down on
peremptory challenge from the defense.
John Horrocks and John Burroughs
were called to I'LL the panel. Mr.. Hor-
rocks was challenged by the defense and
VIM. Lund was called to take his place
Mr.. Lund was excused by the prosecu-
ton and George Murphy took his seat
in the box, was passed and the panel
completed. The indictment charged
John Bergen with committing the
crime OF polygamy by marrying one
Matilda Lunsted on April u, 1886, while
MS legal wife, Augusta Bergen, was still
living and undivorced.
Mr.. Dickson said that the prosecution
did not expect 70 establish their case by
direct evidence, but would endeavor to
do so by circumstantial evidence. They
would show that on the 18th dav of
April last Mr.. Bergen and a plural wife
went with Miss Lunsted, to Logan, and
that while in Logan the defendant and
Miss Lundsted occupied the same room.
He then recited the testimony of the
witnesses in the trial in Salt Lake City
and said that if they established the
facts named they would expect a YER
dist of guilty.
Augusta Bergen was called as q wit
ness-Am the wife of defendant; was
married to him in Salt Lake City; did
not know whether defendant had any
other wife at the time of my marriage;
was his wife on April 18th, 1886.
Cross-examination-W married to
former husband in Sweden, and was di-
vorced from him by the church in Salt
Lake City.
Annie Black was next called. She
testified-ReSide in Salt Lake City;
know the defendant: he is my husband.
Mr.. Sheeks moved 10 strike out the
testimony OF witness, because she was
not mentioned in the indictment.
Overruled.
Where were you married7"
Objection. Overruled.
Ain Salt Lake City in 1881.
Maria MQdopn Qa11ad-Knnv-
John Bergen: he is my husband; have
been married eleven years; know
Augusta Bergen; do not know what
relationship she bears to defendant.
Augusta Bergen recalled = Ny d.
rorced husband is living in Salt Lake
CITY; was married to him in Sweden;
his name was Gustave Neiber; was d.
vorced by Judge Smith.
Cross-examined-Sh was divorced by
the church. n..
The witness did not seem to have a
very clear idea of what was wanted of
her and was perfectly willing to answer
the questions in any way to suit coun-
sell.
Mr. Dickson asked for time TO pro-
duce the Probate Court record of Salt
Lake county for the purpose of proving
whether or not the lady was legally
QlNOIctQ lIOm ucI I5l u45UAuQ.
The prosecution acknowledged that
they were surprised at the turn affairs
were taking. .foti-ras S. r.f-- 80 q.
The court said that the case would be
suspended until tomorrow morning
Mr.. Dickson. however. thought himself
Of the telephone and endeavored to IS
certain whether the record contained
any evidence of the divorce in question.
Court took a recess until 2 pm.
AFTERsoos SESSION.
The court thermometer stood at about
100 degrees in the shade.
Mr.. Dickson stated he had obtained
telephone message from Salt Lake City
stating that a decree Of divorce had
never been entered in the case Of Au-
gusta Bergen, and he asked that he
case be dismissed and an order entered
resubmitting the case to the Grand
Jury.
Mr.. Sheeks objected and made mo
ton for a verdict by the jury.
To this Mr. Dickson objected.
The Court called for the statutes oil
1878 and. after a moments considera-
ton said: 1.-The motion 10 dismiss Is
granted and the case resubmitted To the
Grand Iurv The motion for q