The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-24
EXCUSED TILL MONDAY.
The Judge Thinks Mrs. Bassett =
Competent Witness.

The recalcitrant witness case came be.
fore Judge Zane yesterday. Mr.. Raw
Inns asked that Mrs. Bassett, who ad
refused to testify against her husband,
be sworn on her Uoire dire, in order that
the question as to her being the legal
wife of the defendant might be settled.
In his opinion this was the only way
in which the matter could be settled.
Mr.. .VARIAN objected. He thought
that the marriage of the defendant with
a former wife was shown, and that she
was still living. If the marriage of the
witness was before the divorce of the
first wife, the Grand Jury wanted TO
know it, and the court could not go into
an investigation of the issue. That re-
manned with the Grand Jury, who
could ask any question they pleased :,
and draw out all the facts connected
with any case. The question of the
competency CT the witness could not
be raised before the Grand Jury, but
only when the cause came on for trial
in the court.
Mr.. RAWLINs called the attention of
the Court to the fact that the law said
the Grand Jury could only receive legal
testimony, and if this witness was not
competent they hao no right to compel
hsr 20 testify. The ques len Of
he, npetency as witness
was before the Court, and should
be determined; that the Or. nd
Jury could not do what the statute SAID
could not be done. 1t was proposed TO
show that the witness was the defend
ants lawful wife, his former wife hav-
ing been divorced prior to witness mar
rage. Tnis question had been settled
by the Territorial Supreme Court. in
the case OF the United States VS.. Bar
nard White, where it was said that
legal wife was an incompetent witness
as against her husband, except where
an offense had been committed against
her. The question of competency
could only be settled by the Court,
aud the Grand Jury had nothing to do
with its judicial determination.
Mr.. VARIAN commended that if it was
shown that witness was married 10 de-
PENDANT January 18th 1886, the Grand
Jury had the right to ask whether
there had been any prior marriage cere-
monY.
Mr.. RAWLINGS replied that the law
protected the legal wife N all cases, and
she was not compelled to be q witness
except when g crime had been COM
mitted against her. The questions pro-
pounded by the Grand Jury implied an
understanding on their part that the
witness was the defendants lawful wife,
and they had no right TO ask what
they did. Whenever a witness was
competency of the witness should be
determined by the court.
JUDGE ZANE in deciding the case, said
TT at if the witness was the legal wife,
and the offense complained was not
against her, she would not be compe-
tent witness. If it was against her
she would be The counsel for witness
proposed to show that she was the legal
wife. 1t was alleged By the prosecution
that the defendant had a wife, from
whom he obtained a divorce. and after
ward married the witness. The defense
claimed that cohabitatiOn prior TO the
divorce was no crime against the wit
ness; therefore she could not be COM
PEELED to testify. In reference to
whether the witness occupied the posi-
ZION of lawful wife to the defendant, the
grand jury should investigate that, be
fore the questions submitted were again
propOunded to her. Hhe issue might
then come up as to whether she could
be compelled to answer.
Mr.. RAwLIES asked that the Grand
Jury be instructed to the effect that II
they found the witness to be the Lawful
wife of the defendant Bassett she
should not be compelled to testify
against him.
This request was refused, the Judge
remarking that she was inclined to be-
lIeve that the witness was d competent
witness.
The jury then returned to their
rooms, and Mrs. Bas;ett was excused
until Monday.