The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-05-19

o @ ID e n
oeDEs CRY. NAY 10, 1886
THE FIRST DISTRICT.
Proceedings Before Judge
Powers Yesterday,
Mr.. DEANS CASE CONTINUED.
Barnard White Convicted on One
Count-The Bergen aud Wood
Cases-other Notes.
THE FIRST DISTRICT.
Mr.. DEANS CASE CONTINUED.

Inc FIRST DlStrict court at this place
yesterday morning presented a more
than usually animated appearance. Be
fore the hour of 10 had arrived. the
court room was crowded with anxious
spectators.
The oountenance of Mr.. Dickson was
noticeable among the attorneys who are
usually in attendance, while Marshal
Ireland and deputies were present with
some hall a dozen prisoners. three of
whom were awaiting arreignment on the
charge of polygamy; three others,
Messrs. Maycock. Tracy and Saunders.
having been brought up from the Pen.
to answer to two more indictments each.
Tor living with and acknowledging their
wives.
The first case called was that of John
Bergen. charged with polygamy. The
defendant took the statutory time TO
plead, and the trial was set for Thurs
day hext.
GEo. c. WooD, who is charged with
being in the same boat with Mr.. Bergen,
took the same stand, and his case was
set Tor trial on the same day.
Jos. ii. DEAN. charged with commit
ting the crime of polygamy on the 2Sth
day OF June, 1885, was next called. IN
answer to a question by the Court Mr..
Dean Stated that he would waive the
time TO plead, and plea of not guilty
was entered The Court was about TO
set the case for trial when Mr.. Dickson
interrupted him and said that he did
rot know when the prosecution could
be ready for trial The court passed
the case for the present
The case of the United States VS.. w.
u. Saunders was then called, when C..
c. Richards. Esq, attorney for the de-
lendant, interposed an affidavit asking
for a continuance for the term. The
affidavit set forth the facts that the de-
PENDANT had been imprisoned in the
Penitentiary for some three months I'M
der conviction for unlawful cohabita-
uoB; that the assistant prosecuting
attorney had informed him that his case
would not be called for trial during the
May term OF Court. and that il would
probably not be called at all; that de-
PENDANT had had no opportunity to
consult with his attorney and that he
had no defense prepared. In support of
his motion for a continuance in this case,
which Is Identical with those of Messrs.
Maycock and Tracy, Mr.. Richards
stated that the defendant had been
more than forty miles distant from
Ogden and that he had no opportunity
to consult with him; that as Lorenzo
SHOWS attorney. he had applied to
Marshal Ireland for permit to consult
with him and it had been refused ex-
cept the iRterview were to be a public
one, and that he had concluded that a
similar request in these cases would
meet with like rebuff.
The Court holly asked what that had
to do with this case. Quite an argu-
ment ensued between Mr.. Richards and
the Court, in which Mr.. Richards more
than held his own, but the motion for a
was overruled; but the de-
PENDANT was allowed time to consult
with his attorney.
AMBRC So GREENwELL-WaS then ca led
to plead 10 two indictments, charging
him with unlawful cohabitation with
his wives. To each of the indictments
Mr.. Greenwell entered plea Of guilty,
stating. in reply 10 a query from the
Court. that he did so with a full
knowledge of the punishment that
might be inflicted in each case and
without the promise or hope Of i'm
munity from punishment. Monday
next at 10 am. was sent as the
time for passing sentence.
The case of the United States VS..
BARNARD WHITE,
was then called on two indictments for
unlawful cohabitation, during the
periods of 1884 and 1885. The prosecu-
ton moved to consolidate the two in
dictments and this was objected to by
defense on the grounds: First-That the
United States procedure does not apply
in this case-but the Territorial Statute.
Secondhand the defendant has pre-
pared a distinct defense to each in
dictment and that to consolidate the
indictments, would embarrass the de-
PENDANT. Both objections were over
ruled. The Jury was called as follows:
John Wheeler, Alfred Barrett, Charles
Harris, r. A. Wells, J. Boyle, s. H.
Giesy. George Murphy, w. P. Jones,
]. 3. Shorten, John Horrocks, Sem,
William Lund, II. Biel. The jurors all
passed on the statutory questions, but
NJ. Bel and William Lund went down
on a peremptory challenge by the pros
ecution. ]. g. Armstrong and .. p.
Jennings were called 10 ill the vacancy.
Both were accepted.
Mrs. JANE FIFE WHITE was called as
q witness for the prosecution. The de-
tense objected to having the lady sworn,
on the ground that she was the defend
ants legal. wife, and called r. F. Mad
sen, Probate Judge of Box Elder
who testified TO having per-
formed a marriage ceremony for the
lady and defendant. The ceremony was
performed at defendants house in Box
Elder County in April, 1886. .a
At this juncture marriage certffi-
cate, witnessed by two persons.
was presented in evidence and
identified by witness IS the one he had
issued. Mrs. Jane Fife White was then
sworn on her r0irc dire and testified
that she was married to the defendant
on April 18th, 1856, in Box Elder
County. Judge Madsen performing the
Nh. DIcKsoT-You were married to
the defendant before that time, were
you noti Collected to by the defense-)
The court asked if it was not cross-ex-
animation. The defense replied that
they did not want the question answer
ed before the jury: upon which the jury |
was excused until O'Clock p. m.
a.. -. .I,.fs~-1 -