The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-11-25
THE FAIR CASE.
TUESDAYS PROCEEDINGS.


The case of the United States against
Hon. Lorin Farr was resumed at the
opening Of the court yesterday. The
case, on account of the we.l-known
and favorable reputation of the de-
fendsnt, and on account OF the circum-
stances said to be connected with Mr.
Fairs mode Of life since the passage oil
the Edmunds law, has attracted con-
siderable attention. Public interest ha;
been very great, and the court room wa:
comfortably filed.
The determination to make a strong
legal fight early became very
apparent. the government having
associated Mr.. Bierbower with
Mr.. Hies, for the prosecution, the de-
Tense being con Quoted BY Messrs. P. II.
Emerson, J. n. kimball and S. r.
Thurman. The examination of the Jury
was OF the most searching description.
Mr.. BIERBowER made an opening
statement of the case to the jury, say
ing in the course of the statement that
the first count in the Indictment COW
cred period of time further back than
the statute OF limitations permitted
them 10 go.
MIR. Kimbsu asked for an order ex-
Guiding testimony on the count, but this
motion was overruled. he then OBJ
iected 70 the segregation OF the offenses.
The Court overruled the objection and
granted an exception.
The witnesses on each side of the
case were then called and and an order
entered excluding them from the court
room.
Mrs. NANCY CHASE FARE was the first
witness called by the prosecution. She
testified that she was married to the
defendant the first day of January,
1916. The defendant was never married
previous TO that time. The defense OBJ
jected to having Mrs. Farr sworn.
0vsrruled. Exception.
ANN JONES FAIR was next called.
Live in Ogden; know the defendant; he
used to be my husband; was married TO
him and have never been divorced; he
has not lived with me so long that you
can hardly call him my husband.
Here Mr.. BierboWer assumed that
Mr.. Farr had other wives, and asked
the witness who they were. After some
controversy the witness named the
wives in the order. The witness could
not say how long since Mr.. FAIR had
lived with her, bur it had been a num-
Der of years.
Here the prosecutor began a line OF
questions about divorce, when he was
ruled out by the court.
WTTSEss-Have had seven children,
the Oldest is 80 years, the youngest
little more than 20. The re.
lations of h. sband and wife
were continued until six or seven
years ago. Previous TO 1850 Mr.. Farr
lived with his first wife. By al Of his
wives Mr. Farr has had thirty-siI
children. Witness then told where the
different ladies lived prior TO 1850, and
where they now live, each living IN
| separately for about thirty years.
The witness stated that she now lives
on Mr. Fairs farm he never has been
| to the farm except on business 70 look
after the men and boys. This practice
has been continued for a number OF
years; he sometimes happens TO come
/ TO the farm at meal time and the boys
ask him to eat; he sits down at any va
cant place at the table.
Q.-What is the difference, Mrs. Farr,
between the relations between yourself
now and Eve years ago, except that ne
| does not visit you so much2
ADO not know, only We have not
lived together
1 still recognize the marriage that
was performed between myself and Mr..
Farr; it has never been dissolved
our relations are friendly; he calls
me by my Christian name; he has
called me so for some time; only he does
not call me his wife. Early IN the
spring OF 1893 l went east, Mr.. Farr
and his daughter were going east and l
asked the privilege OF going along, and
went to visit my FOLKS in Connecticut;
was gone some five weeks. Mr.. Kim.
ball moved that the evidence in rela-
ton TO the trip east be excluded en- the
! ground that the time was exterior to
the time named in the indictment.
| The objection was overruled. The
balance OF the forenoon session was
| taken up IN the examination OF this
witness which was concluded, and a
recess was taken until 2 pm.
At the opening Of the
/ ---r,-oo,r =-=urnrr