The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-03
ON ALL THREE COUNTS.
afr 'ase@ rose ztaa n4
0. P. Arnold Adjudged Guilty
as Charged.
MR. DECISIONS NEW IDEAS.
How BE Would Have q Man Make
Himself Secure-The jury
Out One Hour.
MR. DECISIONS NEW IDEAS.


DEPUTY E. A. FRANKs-He said: On
the evening of the 18th of January [
saw Mr.. Arnold come from Mrs.
Fannie Arnold's and go to the Cont
mental. While there he conversed with
several gentlemen. took a drink and
rang up DR.. Benedict, at the telephone.
There was light at Mrs. Arnold's when
saw him go in; he went in the front
door.
DR. 81. J. RICHARDS sworn--I was
called to treat child of Mr.. ArDold's
about the S0th of July 'S5 on First West
Street. found livery i'll of summer
complaint; 1 prescribed for it, and re-
commended that they keep the child
out of doors as much as possible, keep
their house open and take it out riding
1 should call it a very sick child.
To Mr.. DICKsoN-I went away two
or three days after that and did not
see the child again.
JAMES JACK sworn-Mr. Arnold bus
mess Office has been at my Office for the
past eight or ten years. He comes be
tween and s o'clock to count the
money. That's his habit.
Mrs. FANNIE DORA ARNoLD re-
caIled-I had sickness IN my family
last January; DR.. Benedict called at my
house with Mr.. Arnold. Two of my
children were quite sick with sore
Threats; 1 think it was about the latter
part Of January.
To Mr.. DICKsoN-Dr. Benedict is my
family physician; he was there one
night about o'clock, and other times
during the day; can give no idea of
how long they were sick; they were both
confined in the house.
CLERK MCMILLAN sWore-I remember
the case of Mr.. Arnold's pleading last
April or May.
Did Mr.. Arnold make any state
ment to the court on that occasion re-
garding his intentions concerning his
family relations?
Objected to by Mr.. Dickson as being
immaterlal.
THE JUDGE said he did not see the ma
teriality of it.
Mr.. RAWLINs argued that the declara-
ration made at that time had material
bearing on the subsequent conduct of
the defendant. It would eXplRin his
visits, 1t would show why they were
made and explain what might be con-
strued as continuation of unlawful CO.
habitaton. 1t was all part of the res
jeSta in this case. When q man in this
public way announces his intention to
live with his lawful wife, not to hold
out any one else as his wife, his declara-
tion ought to be material in his defense
when he was accused of violating his
promise.
THE JUDGE ruled that he might an
sWer.
Al have nothing more than gen
craI recollection of the case, but ter he
plead guilty, he was questioned by the
court. and promised to obey the law
relating TO unlawful cohabitation IN the
future.
Q.-Was anything said about living
with his lawful wife2
Al have no recollection of that.
| The date of this promise was admitted
| to be April 18th, 1885, from a copy Of
/ The HERALD of that date in the posses
| sion of the defense.
! Mrs. ALICIA ARNOLD, the defendants
! first wife was sWorn-oinCe May LIST,
1881, the defendant mas lived at my
! house. He has been absent from the
city or Territory several times, but
| when home he was always at my house,
both eating and sleeping there. He
missed but one night; that was year
| ago last summer.
/ Some wait occurred while the officers
were looking for DR.. Benedict, but as
they did not find him, Mr.. RaWlins said
! they would close.
Nh. DICKSON then commenced his
opening argument. The defendants
conduct has been such as to lead the
neighbors to believe that his relations
with his former plural wife had Lot
| terminated. Mr.. Dickson did not be-
\ Eeve the defendant had kept his prom
Use to obey the law and abandon the
second wife for q hours. Deputy
| Franks had watched him visit the
plural wife on two evenings in January.
The conduct of the defendant, as shown
] by the evidence, was such that the jury
| should convict him.
| Mr.. RAwLINs said-The counsel for
the defense had some requests 10 make
they would like to have the following
instructions given:
| Rehabilitation in the sense of the law,
meansto live or dwell together as husband
and wife, and before you can find the de-
PENDANT guilty, you must be satisfied from
the evidence, beyond q reasonable doubt
that the defendant, while living with his
! lawful wife, Alicia Arnold, also lived or
dwelt with Fanny Dora Linuell, within the
period mentioned in the indictment, as his
wife. - E
| rehabilitation means having the same
habitation; not g sOiOurn, habit OF visit
ing, or a remaining for 8 time; there must be
something more than mere meretricious in
tercOurse.
! 3-Ifthe jury find from the evidence that
the defendant, before the 1St day OF May,
4 1885, withdrew himself IRON his second
wife, aud thereafter ceased to hold her out
or acknowledge her as such, but lived and
dwelt with his lawful wife, ostenibly re-
framing from dwelling with such unlawful
wife, though he supported and visited hel
/ and her children, and though she may have
/ been sometimes known as or called Mrs
Arnold, you should find The defendant moi
guilty.
4-If you find that the defendant merely
visited the house of Fanny Dora Lin.
nell for the purpose of seeing or inquiring
after the welfare of her or his children, OF
ascertaining their wants, but not for the
purpose Of marital association or holding
her out or acknowledging her as mis- wife
and that he did. not hold her out or claim
her as such, you should lind he defendant
not guilty
5-The word visit, according to its ordin.
airy and general Specification, means to keer
up the interchange OF ciyilities: TO practice
going to see others.