The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-11-20
THURSDAYS SESSION .
The Jury Empaneled in the Parry
Perjury Case.

At 10 O'Clock Thursday morning the
First District Court was called TO order
and John Davis, a native of Wales, was
admitted TO citizenship.
The civil cases of D. P. Tarpey VS..
Lonergsn, and the same against S. y
Walker ct al, were continued for the
term. The case against P. 4. Nielsen,
OF Logan, obtaining money under false
prstences. was ordered placed on the
general call. Nielsen is now in the Pen.
because he could not obtain bal! in the
sum of 5000.
One OF the c. NJ. G. & S. Co. was
argued on motion TO grant q writ OF
Prohibition. which was finally granted.
st the afternoon session the case
against kershaw was argued on motion
for continuance ana was taken under
Amusement.
The case of the United States VS..
Susan Parry perjury, was then taken
up and the following witnesses were
csl.ed: y. Z. Hill. z. L. Anderson. J.
X. Allen and J. w. McNutt. call a
Jury said the court, and the following
names were called, the gentlemen tax
ing their seats n the box. Fred Foy,
w. NJ. Boman, o II. Dudley w. NJ
Barry, a. J. Stone, J. 5. Thomas. Geo.
Burrows. Thomas Grant, Hendrick
Larson, Edward Sewall, n. s. Bell and
James Goodwin. The prosecution pro-
ceeded 10 examine the jury on their
statutory qualifications, after being
sworn on their rOir dire. They were
passed. Alr. Burrows presented a GER
tificate of naturalization from the
I ~
States.
Mr.. Grant was naturalized in the
First District one year sgo last July.
Mr. kimban challenged Mr.. Burrows
for cause, on the form of his certificate.
but some interrogations convinced him
that the naturalization was all right.
and the Juror was passed. Mr.. kimball
then challenged Mr.. Grant, on the
ground that he was not a citizen of the
! United States six months prior 10 Janu-
airy 1st last. The challenge was over
ruled, and the defense proceeded TO
examine the jury for cause. The exam
nation was satisfactory, and the jury
was passed for cause by the defense.
The prosecution began the examine
/ ton for cause. and Tor the purpose of
ascertaining the status of the jurors in
order toexercise the right of peremptory
challenge, asked the jurors If they were
/ in favor of enforcing the laws against
polygamy and unlawful cOhabitatiOn.
| Mr.. Kimbali could not see the relevancy
of these questions in g case OF perjury,
/ but the Court held that these questions
were admissible as the prosecutor did
not intend 10 use the information
elected as ground for challenge for
cause. Mr.. Larson replied yes to the
/ question OF the prosecutor as
/ 10 the enforcing OF the law, at
| first, but later said no; he
was not in favor OF enforcing those
laws. Mr.. Larson was excused.
He did moi hear az first, and Mr. Kim
| ball caused q smile by telling him he
could get up and so out, as he was ex-
cused.
The defense then challenged Mr.
Grant and Mr.. Burrows. John Ginner,
Robt. Davis and Daniel Woodland were
| called. The latter was not present, and
/ Chas. Webb was called, and the trio was
sworn. Mr.. Davis was naturaliZed day
/ before Yesterday" There was SON c
! question as 10 whether the juror 5
/ father had become q citizen, and he was
! excused for the present. The jurors
were passed. and Joseph jenkins was
| called 10 fill the vacancy. The Juror
was accepted, and the panel being
I filled, the indictment was read
TO the twelve good men and true.
The indictment charges that Mrs. Parry
new committed the crime OF perjury by
swearing before the grand jury IN Feb
ruary last that, which the jury was in
vestigating charge of unlawful cohabi-
tation against Joseph Parry, her
Youngest child was more than 5 years
old while in fact il was less than years
of age.
Prosecutor Hiles made q brief open
ing statement and o. E. Hill was called
and asked If he was grand Juror 81
the ,ast November term OF court. Inc
question was objected TO and the oolec-
ton was sustained. The witness $1,000
aside and Clerk Perkins, with the min
ute book of the court n his hand,
took the stand. Mr.. kimball objected
10 the Introduction OF any testimony
on the ground that first the indictment
6osS NOT set forth any offenss against
the United States, and second, because
the facts do not show any offecse
against the United States. There were
two other grounds somewhat similar
and Mr.. Kimball proceeded 70 argue the
case. quoting from statutes and author
ities 10 sustain his position which was
that as the United States had not pro-
yided for the administration OF any
oath before the grand Jury IN this Class
of cases and that the United states Goes
not have jurisdiction in prosecutions
for perjury in this Territory. Inc case
was being argued by counsel when the
mail left and was probably taken unqei
xdyisement by the court until TINS
morning.