The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-09

voTr mothers house all night.
Mr.. RICHARDS again objected. Such
a, question was entirely improper;
great latitude had been allowed in cases
Of unlawful cohabltatiOn, but the de-
PENDANT was not on trial for that-the
charge against him was polygamy. 1t
il ONLY question as to the marriage Of
the defendant TO the witness. Whether
he staId there or not would have no
bearing on the matter
Mr. DICKsON-I shall ask for permis-
sion TO show what the relations of this
man and woman have been during the
past three years. 1t may have Deen
that they have been intimate outside of
wedlock. 1t may have been that the
lady is mistaken, when she says she
was not married to the defendant prior
to the 10th day Of september this year.
MR. RICHARDs-StiIl insist. The
testimony OF the marriage is in the
hands of the prosecution; the tesli-
mony is irrelevant, and SD .uld not be
allowed to enter.
THE COMMISSIONER thought such
questions might have bearing upon
state of things that existed between
the defendant and Miss Wells prior to
the recent alleged marriage. He did
any more than she could help. An in
veStigatlon of the case had been made
before the warrant was issued, and it
was patent from the evidence that there
was something wrong in the relations
of the witness and defendant before
they were married. The defendant was
accused Of adultery, divorced his legal
wife one day and married witness the
next. There was something wrong.
1.-The facts should come out, and | am
disposed 10 let them come"
Nh RICHAPDS-DO you mean to say
that the prosecution has right TO pry
into the private life of this young lady
Ia an endeavor to Scandalize her? The
defendant is merely charged with polyg-
amy, and the examination Should be
confined to that charge
Mr.. DICKSON denied any desire to
scandalize the witness. When the tes-
timony is in it will probably show that
the defendant held such relations with
this woman as presuppose marriage.
believe she was married to defendant
long before she says she was.
But il is five minutes to 10, and have
to be in court at 10 on an important
case, and can't stay any longer now.
Mr.. MCKAY-Well, if you go into
this case this Way-half an hour now,
half an hour at noon and half an honr
some other time and want the witnesses
kept Separate-it is liable to occupy
three or four days2
Nh. DICKsON-Well, can't help It!
Mr.: RICHARDs-What would you sug-
gest2
Mr. DICKsoN-I will see if Mr.. Varian
can attend to it, and if he can, the case
can go right on row.
And with that cold consolation for
the authority of Judge" Mckay, the
prosecutor picked up his hat and walked
coolly away.
After an absence of about ten min
uteS, however, Mr.. Dickson returned,
and continued the examination by ask
ing witness:
Q.-Had he ever stopped in that house
all night2
Ayes; he boarded there quite
long time, be and his wife.
Q, When was that?
A.-Some time after he came home
from his mission.
Q.-About how long did he live there?
A.-Probably four months. They
then went to live in the Twelfth Ward.
Q.-Atter they moved away, did he
ever stop there all night Jour
nOlnGI , MUSE.
Al believe he did-he and his
W fe.
Odd he ever stop there whenever
his wife did not stay with him?
A Never, except when his wife was
in San Francisco.
Q.-AoW long was she absent2
A-FOur or five weeks. He did not
stay there every night; he WIS there
three or four times, l believe, during
that period.
Q.-How many nights, to your
knowledge, did he stay there?
Al do not know.
Q.-What room did you occup dur
ing that time?
Any bedroom was up stairs in the |
northwest corner of the house; Can
non slept on the porch in front of the
house.
Q.-Was he ever in your bed room?
Ale was not.
Q.-Do you swear to that?
Al do.
Q.-Are you sure OF that?
Ayes.
Q-Just as sure as you are that you
were married on the 10th Jay OF Sep
tember lastY
AYES.
Q.-Just as sure of one as of the
other?
A-(Coolly and collectedly)-Yes,
j uSt as sure of one as of the other, and !
quite sure of both. have no recollec- |
ton of his ever proposing marriage be-
fore the 9th of September. DO not
know that he ever proposed marriage !
to me before that day; swear that |
have no recollection of it: | saw my
sister Annie the day before was mar
ried; l knew that sheshsd obtained !
divorce; defendant tod me that she |
had; l knew that my sister had |
the divorce on the ground OF !
adultery; l do not think that the |
matter was spoken of to any
extent; L knew that my sister had, a
divorce from the defendant on the
ground OF adultery, and yet became
his wife; | made no inquiries about the
truth of the cause Of my sister obtain
ing q divorce.
Mr.. DICKsoN-I ask for a subpoena
70 DR.. Benedict.
Resumed-It was not q matter OF in
difference to me, but I did not care
yer! much about tit did not concern |
me gre9tly.
Q-Were you ever N the Endowment |
Objected to as irreYelant. Objection