The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-09-19
Continued from Einhth PAGE.

Commissioner; after that moved my
sheep to P. V. Junction !; | returned
home on the Oath of December, 1886,
got some provisions and went away
again on the last of the month; re-
turned home about the 21st of May,
1887; staid one night, and returned to
the sheep, where remained until the
last of August, 1887; during all this
time / never saw Mrs Crandall.
TO Mr.. PETERs-I was at home
about the LIST of July, 1886; was there
about two or three days; Mrs. Grand
all did not live near me il 1881; she
lived on the other side of the river
about mile and half from me /;
know Annette RevoIr; she has been
living at my house; Ann Revoir has
also lived there; the were my wives at
one time; | decline 10 answer whether l
am the father of Annette's child.
To Mr.. HOFFMAN, have not lived
man during the time specified in the
indictment; l can't live with them all,
so don't want to live with any.
To Mr.. PETERs-I have three wives
living.
To Mr.. HOFFMAN, have not lived
with them since June, 1884.
PICKARD
was called, but his testimony was not
material, and Mrs. Judith ReYoir's evil
dence was not of startling nature.
Mr.. Peters argument was brief, and
Mr.. Hoffman occupied but short time.
THE JUDGES CHARGE
was as follows:
John Irving islands arraigned at the
bar of this court under an indictment
charging him with unlawful cohabita-
ton on the LIST day of January, 1894, at
Salt Lake County, in this Territory,
and thereafter continuously remained
in that condition of unlawful cohabita-
ton until the 30th day of June, 1884.
That he cohabited with more than one
woman as his wives, viz: with one
Elizabeth Irving, and with one Annette
Revoir, sometimes known as Ann
Revoir, contrary to the provisions of
the statutes.
The testimony presented before you
is not very conflicting nor very volu.
mlnous. Some of the facts on which
this prosecution is bssed have been
admitted by the defendant, particularly
the defendant admits that he has three
wives. That is a material fact for YOU
to consider.
The main question in the case is
whether the testimony of the witness
on the part of the people, Mrs. Swim
burg, is to be received, or the testi-
mony on tie part of the defendant,
offered by himself. The two are con
fiictlng. 1t is your duty to consider
them carefully, to weigh them, to recon
Gle them.
The defendant attempts to prove an
alihi as to part Of the time for 1ich |
he is charged with this unlawful CO.
habitatlon, and puts on the stand the |
witness, Pickard, who states that Ger
tain parts of the month of June, de-
PENDANT was some distan e from his |
home taking care of some sheep; and |
there defendant leaves his defense as
alibi.
In order to convict the defendant of
the guilt Of the charge against him,
you will. of course, have to find that |
he committe d this act of unlawful CO.
habitatlon at the time set forth in the
indictment, and you are understood |
to pass on the credibility of |
the witnesses yourselves. You have |
seen them testify, you have heard them
testify, and the recollection OF their tes-
timony is fresh IN your memory. You
are to weigh the evidence that has been
presented before you, and pass on the
whole OF the testimony and arrive at a
verdict in the case.
Ii you believe the testimony adduced /
on the part OF the defendant to be cor
rect and true, then you will bring in
your verdict accordingly. If you fir d
on the other hand that the People have
sustained the charge by competent
proof, then you will find for the People.
Every reasonable doubt must be de-
cided in favor of the defendant. If you
are satisfied that he is innocent, then
you will bring in your verdict in that
charge against him.
been laid down by the United States
Supreme Court, in the case of Cannon
vs.. the United States. According to
this decision, that offense was-and l
Am bound to present to you this law as
The law of the land. which you will &C
cept and to which you will conform
5he court says: "The otfense OF cohabit-
ng with more than one woman, created
oy the third section of the act of Con-
yress of March II, 1882, in regard to
1olygamy in the Territory of Utah, is
committed by man who lives in the
same house with two women, and eats
1t their respective tables one-third of
lis time, or thereabouts, and holds !
hem out to the world by his language
,r conduct, or both, as his wives, and it
s not necessary to the commission of
he ofense that he and the two women,
,r either of them, should occupy the
anne bed, or sleep in the same room, or
hat he should have sexual intercourse
With either Of thsm. LIE U. S. Rep.
This is the law on which you will act
n this case, gentlemen of the jury.
The defendant has set up as defense
hat he has had no sexual knowledge
With these women that he calls his
wives,
All the testim Ony is before you. You
7ill bring In such verdict as is author
zed by the testimony which you have
4eard in this case.
TIE JURY RETIRED
n charge of baliff. After being out
bout fifteen minutes, verdict of guilty
70 charged in the Indictment was re-
urned.