The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-02-07
IN THE SNOW CASE.
A Decision by the Territorial
Supreme Court.
POWERS UPHELD, OF COURSE.
The Chief Justices Grstuitous Insult
to the aged Apostle-"Cohabita
ton" Again Defined
POWERS UPHELD, OF COURSE.
SUPREME COURT OF UTAH TERRITORY,
January Term, A. D. 1886.
Tinted States Indictment
VS.. foryear
Lorenzo Snow. 1885,

United States Indictment
1or.n1 vs.. Snow. fG 1sS gear
Zane, G. 1.-THE defendant was convicted
of the crime of unlawful cohabltation anC
sentenced to Imprisonment in the penlten-
tiary for the term of six months, and to pay
fine of three hundred dollars and the
costs of the prosecution. From this judg
ment he has appealed to this Court aSd IN
sists that the evidence is insufficient to JUS
tify the verdict.
At the commencement of the trial the de-
PENDANT admitted before the court and jury
that he had married each of the seven
women named in the indictment; had not
been divorced from either and that he
claimed all of them as his wives ana fur-
nished them support.
1t appears from the evidence that appel
liant was first married more tnan forty years
ago in Nauvoo, Illinois, to two women, Ade-
line and Charlotte, at the same time and by
one ceremony (the latter of the two women
has since died) and that he has since mar
ried in the order named, Sarah, Harriet,
Eleanor, Mary, Phoebe. and Minnie, also
one other, Caroline (nOw deceased). The
| last marriage was IN 1911. inc hrst mar
| riage was unlawful because the marriage
| with two women at the same time is
void. Therefore Sarah is the lawful wife.
| The evidence shows and it is admitted by
| defendant that he has lived and cohablted
with the youngest and last wife since his
|
dren, the Youngest being three months old.
Sarah Snow the lawful wife, was INTRO
duced as witness without objection, ana
with other testimony gave the following;
She married defendant about forty years
| age and now has. grown children by nm !;
| she lives at the old homestead in company
with Harriet and Eleanor, and has been
| living there nearly thirty years; i've years
ago Minnie lived IN one wing of the OLD
homestead, and defendant lived with her
4 =, 70 m
came there defendant boarded with witness /;
| she has never been divorced, defendant mas
| supported her, their social intercourse has
been friendly and he calls on her occasion
ally; he calls less frequently as he grows
older In answer to the question, Estate If
| it is not about the only difference in your
relations in living that he does not call to
! see YOU as often as he did Formerly wit
ness stated. "Well, sometimes he calls and
sometimes he do at call. do not see nm
as much as did five years ago, for he lived
right there five years ago; he does not visit
me as much as he did when he boarded with
me. Five years ago he lived right there
next door. Witness also said on cross-eX-
animation that she has five children, that
two live at home and the youngest is y
wears old that defendant, whenever he goes
home, passes by the doOr-that being one
way to 90, passing through the lot; that
witness went away IN the spring OF 1850, and
that defendant was away SIX or seven
three times during 1885, and would remain
perhaps half an hour; that since defendant
moved to the new brick house with his last
wife he has never slept In the house where
witness has slept, and no room is kept for
him: that when he came he would generally
be busy with their son; that his calls of late
were principally with their son; that he
would enquire if they were getting along all
right.
Harriet Snow, another wife, stated that
she was married to defendant forty years
ago, in December of that year, that he is the
father of her children, and that she lives in
her own home, which appellant provided
for her and that he arranges for her sup
port; that he had visited her few times
during the year 1885, sometimes to enquire
about the children; that she could not say
how often he visited her, but he did visit
her; witness was asked if there was any diff
ference between their relations during last
year (lSS5) and those of SIC years ago; to
which question she answered: "A good deal;
in my Younger days, l lived with him as a
wife, and raised him children. Now / am
an old lady and do not consider the rela-
tions binding upon me IN my younger days
to be SO now. lido MOTIVE with him in the
same way'' Mary Snow also answered the
nterrogatory: sis it not true that he has
not called as much as he used to, and is not
that the only differenceT' in the following
words: "He does not call so much for the
reason that he has been away from town.
Il
number of years ago. To the furtherques-
ton: 'Then the reason he visited
you less, was because he was
away a great portion of the year,"
she answered, Eyes, l guess so; he has
been away the last year." Eleanor Snow,
another polygamous wife. among other
things stated: Il guess | recognized him
as my husband and he me as wife during
1885; don't know; the difference in our re-
citizenship the last year and formerly
81 II
only difference is he is not in my company
so much-you understand. Previous to
that. he had visited and dined with me once
in while. When he dined with me, it was
with me and my children, unless there was
company to these family gatherings. Mr.
Snow occupied the position as head of the
family and occupies The head of the table
when he is there; his friends all put him at
the head of the table, DR.. j. Il. Caring
ton testified that, in 1885, he saw defendant
in company with Sarah-Out riding with
her; another woman was in the carriage
thought it was Harriet; that he also saw
defendant ana Sarah sitting together in the
theatre, in the part of the house usually Oc-
cupied by the Snow family, and that they
afterwards went out together. In the CITY
where defendant lives, he and his various
wives and their families appear from the
evidence to be regarded by all as
one family, and this family has place
assigned it in the theatre apart from other
regarded as part and portion of defend
ants family-of the Snow family-and that
the appellant IS regarded a the head of this
entire family by each member of it. In 1885
the last witness saw defendant 20 in and
come out through the gate in font of the
old homestead. where Sarah and two of his
polygamous wives lived, but witness did
not see HIM 90 in or come out of that house.
The officer who arrested appellant testified
that alter he had searched DEFENDANTS
house, he discovered carpet that had been
ripped, and on examination found under
meath the carpet little trap door, and I'M
der that door small apartment, and back
of that another apartment, add IN that
apartment he found the defendant. De
PENDANT did not come QUE when called, until
the officer made preparation TO break the
door: defendant then said: "All right: am
coming out" and when he came out he said
further: That is all right, boys; you have
done your duty come and take drink with
me-"
Itappears from the evidence that appel
liant boards and lodges with his last wife
and visits his other wives occasionally.
though not very often: that during the wear
| 1885 he has not lodged or taken meal with
any ono OF TIE Others; that he furnishes
them houses 10 live in and supports them:
that he introduces them publicly as hls
wives, and by his language and conduct
holds them out to thew0rld as such. The
evidence proved beyond controversy thai