Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-10-02
THE ARNOLD TRIAL.
The Conclusion Of the Evidence for the
PrOsecutiOn-The Defense
Introduce Evidence.
They Attempt to Show that the Visits
Of Defendant Were On Account
Of Sickness.
The Arguments Of Mr.. Dickson and
Mr.. RaWlins-The Defendant
Much Affected.


yesterday afternoon, the examination o
witnesses in the Arnold case was proceed
ed with, and some important evidence
was elected.
The first witness after Orson Jr. had
had his say, was
n d. LINNELL,
The second wife of the defendant. She
said: Was married to defendant fourteen
years ago.; has lived in this city with her
children since the 10th of May, 1885
defendant has called to see the children,
sometimes as often as once a day, and
always as often as once a week when in
the city. She could not say when it was
he went away; whether it was before or
after the holidays of the present year.
He did not tell her where or when he was
going; he had returned and visited her
at her house before she was last before
the Grand Jury; before January LIST he
had taken meals with her and the chill
dren; that was after May l, 1885. She
had during the period covered by the in
dictment visited Ogden with him and
one of her children, putting up at the
Broom Hotel. Her supper was sent up
and she went down to breakfast; he
came into her room before supper and
again after; ne also went in the morn
ing; he did not sit down on either oc-
%casion, nor did he occupy the room with
her; was out driving with her in the CITY
when the baby was sick last summer;
could not say how many times, perhaps
half a dozen times; could not remember
when she last went driving with him;
but not since the babe was sick; when
he visited her at her home he generally
went in at the back door; witness has
not been to the theatre with him he
never took her there, but he had taken
her home from the the theatre; defend
ant had been at her house in the even
ing when she had sickness in the family
that was about the latter part of last
January; vas there on any other
occasion in the evening.
On cross-examination she stated that
since he pleaded to an indictment in
April, 1885, he had not claimed her as a
wife, nor since that time had he treated
her as a wife, as he did prior to that
time; he stopped with her one night, it
being the occasion of the sickness of the
babe. She has four children, the Young
est 2 years and a half old; defendant
supports the children; witness has to
rustic for herself. When he calls. it is
generally in the day time, but his visits
are irregular and uncertain as to time:
the riding out with him was in the even
ing before dark, and on the advice of a
physician for the benefit of the sick child.
The occasions of his having taken meals
there was when witness invited him to
do so; he sat up all night with the sick
child, and that was the only occasion of
his stopping at her house over night; he
took witness and her sister home from
the theatre once last winter; when call
he had asked for the welfare of the
children, not for hers, or had been on
business In connection with the manage
ment of the children there has been no
visiting between the two females since he
promised to obey the law.
MISS ARNOLD,
The daughter of the defendant, testified
to her fathers having lived with her
mother during all the time named in the
Indictment.
MISS GARDENER,
neighbor of Fanny's, testified to having
seen Arnold 60 to her house very often
during the time in question. He always
went in by the back door and came out
the same way.
JOHN TYLER,
Clerk at the Broom Hotel in Ogden, said
hat Arnold had registered at the house
vice during May, 1885. He had a woman
With him the first time, and taking one
DOM he registered go. P. Arnold and
The second time he had another
woman with him and, taking two rooms
which were joined by a door, he regis
cred simply, go. p. Arnold"
DEPUTY FRANKS
testified to having seer Arnold 90 to
house twice during January of
his year. Once was on the 18th and once
n the 18th.
At this point the prosecution rested
nd the court adjourned until this morn
Dg.
To-DAY'S SESSION.
AT the opening of court this mornino
defense in the case began by calling
Franks, who said:
To defense: On the evening of the 18th
January, when l saw Mr. Arnold leave
lie house on First West street and 90 TO &
lie Continental, | saw him go into the 1
ar-room hethen went to the telephone, ]
I'd L heard him mention DR.. Benedict's t
lme; the house was lighted when he c
turned; he entered through the front /
DOR; on the 18th, when 1 saw him 90 fl
ere, the house was lighted; he entered a
e front door. a
DIR. II. J. RICHARDS =
as then called. He said: Am ac- =
with defendant; was called to q
lat a child of his about the Goth of =
ne, 1885; the child was very ill; I adj
'ed them to keep the child outdoors as
UGH as possible.
prosecution: | left the city two days n
5er | was first called there; don't know C;
ythlng about it except during that y
d
JIM JACK n
the next witness. He said: | am
qunted with defendant; we have had
office together for eight or ten wears:
usually gets there between Z and s
lock in the morning. Excused. IL
FANNIE LINNELL oc
Ihen CalIeu: L q lckneSS in nv A.
nlly in January last; DIR. Benedict Fl
there with Mr.. Arnold; one child
s sick, and when it got almost well
other was taken; think it was the lat
part of January.
prosecution-Dr. Benedict is the d.
nlly physician; he was there once Go
night while the child was sick: he
several times in the daytime. Ex-
ed.
II. G. M'MLLAN IN
Is the next witness: l remember the on
urrence of Mr.. Arnold's pleading do
lty to an Indictment for unlawful co.