The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-05-27
O DEN.
THE FIRST DISTRICT.
Judge Powers Work in Court
Yesterday.

The First District Court room was
again filed with heterogeneous mass
of humanity at the opening hour yes
terday morning. After the reading Of
the journal of the previous days pro-
ceedings, the case of the United States
VS.. Barnard White was called aud Mr.
White was ordered to stand up. Mr..
]. y. Kimball, counsel for Mr.. White,
made motion for new trial. The
hearing of the motion was set for
O'Clock p. m.
AMBROSE GREESwELL was next asked /
to stand up and was asked if he had
anything 10 say why sentence should |
not be passed The defendant had
nothing TO say; neither had his at
torney, Mr.. Kimball. Mr.. Greenwich
was then informed OF the fact that he
had broken the law of the United
States and was asked as 10 his intentions
as to the future. Mr.. Greenwich replied
that his past conduct was before the
community TO the future he could
make no promises. The Court-"By
your pleas of guilty you inform the
Court that you have violated a
law of the United States"
Mr.. GREENwELL Your Honor,
took those wives IN good faith some
twenty-seven years ago, and have not
the heart to say now that l will cast
them Off l now stand ready to receive
any sentence the court may wish TO IN
Alct."
The Court then said that its personal
wish would be, upon receiving an as
surance that re would obey the law in
the future, TO suspend sentence in both
!, cases. Judge Powers then delivered q
lecture on Mr.. GreenwelPs past con-
: duct. the influence he had among bis
friends. the ease with which he could
obey the Law in the future. and some
other points; after which the soft
hearted Judge sentenced Mr.. Greenwich
: TO six months imprisonment IN the Per
anu TO fine OF $500 on the hrst indict
ment. and TO six months Imprisonment
on the second.
Call the witnesses in the case of tn
United States against Kershaw," salt
4 the Court. The case, after consider
4 able cross-firing. was continued untl
l. this morning at 10 O'Clock, until whicl
time the witnesses were excused.
Brown vs.. Orth next came up, Hor
p. II. Emerson making the closing ar
gument, Judge Williams being unabl
IA to appear. The argument was yer
" brief. and after instructions from tn
Court the jury retired. After a shol
absence, the jury returned with vel
dict in favor Of the plaintiff. The We
dict was received by plaintiffs couns
n with a smile OF satisfaction.
~ r. A Wells was excused from sc
- vice on the jury for the term.
The case Of Lashus against Chambe
lain came up, and was argued on
point OF law until the room recess.
n AT 1.30 Pm.
N MR. ]. n. KTNBALL argued the motto
for new trial in the case again
Barnard White. The grounds up
which the motion was made are: FL
That the Court erred in adm
"a ting the testimony OF Jane +
lJ White, shs being the defendan
legal wife and he not having commit
any crime against her. Second-Tf
the evidences was insufficient to jast
- verdict. There was no evidence
show that the defendant cohabited W
= the two ladies named. in Weber coun
as charged in the Indictment
The motion was argued by Mr.. ri
: bali for the defense. and Mr.. Hiles
the prosecution. Upon being 81
mitted the matter was taken under {
visement until 10 O'Clock this mornr
A jury was empaneled in the case
Lashus IS. Chamberlain.
IN In this case 6. w. Lashus elai
lie $4,000 damages for a violation OF c.
tract in the purchase by him from
defendant, T. C. Chamberlain, OF
Chamberlain Hotel, this city.
Lashus claims TO have bought
property and good will of the busin'
taking Chamberlain's obligation moi
90 into the hotel business again IN
den while Lashus continued in the b
. ness. Subsequently Mr.. Chamber
started the Central Hotel here. and
n Lashus began suit to recover The ali
~ amount The case was still progress
when Court adjourned.