The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-12-20
IN LEGAL CIRCLES.
Sentences Passed in the Third
District Court.
FOR UNLAWFUL COHABITATION
Miscellaneous Business in
the First District at Ogden
Police Court Piokings.

disposed or great grlSt OF business, as
shown below.
Elias Morris VS.. Philip W. Tucket;
default and Judgment as prayed.
FOR UNLAWFUL CoHAB1TATIoN.
United States VS.. Andrew Amund-
son, unlawful cohabitation; the plea of
not guilty was withdrawn and plea of
guilty entered.
After asking the defendant if he had
anything to say why sentence should
not be passed, and receiving a negative
answer, Judge Sandtord said: You
know, l suppose, that the object of the
law is to prescribe punishment for the
same purpose as a man Furnishes his
children, so that they will not offend
again. Precisely that, and nothing
more If L felt satisfied that you would
go to your home and obey the laws of
the land, would not send you to jail
for a moment. Punishment comes
when you violate the law. just as when
you put your hand in the fire. The
court has no mere feeling about it than
the fire has in burning your hand. All
the law wants is to be carried out, SO
that there will be a cessation of the Of
tense to which you have pleaded guilty.
You must pay fine of $65 and be i'm.
prisoned in the penitentiary for eighty
days.
TWO CIVIL CASES.
Martin D. Wardell VS.. Hannah War
dell; plaintiff allowed to amend COM
plant.
Matilda Openshaw vs.. the Utah &
Nevada Railroad Company; motion to
verify statement on motion for new
trial nunc pro tune as of Septem Der II,
1888; argued by P. L. Williams for the
defendant and J. L. Rawling for
plaintiff and submitted to the court.
MORE U. c. CASES.
Samuel Bateman was next called for
unlawful cohabitation. There were
four indictments against Mr.. Bateman.
To-day Mr.. Clark informed the court
that under the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States three of these
were void, and they were accordingly
dismissed. To the other Mr.. Ba eman
pleaded guilty.
Sdlus
AS l have often said to others stand
ing where you stand, Mr.. Bateman, 1
am at loss to say how much punish
ment shall be inflicted. The object of
all these proceedings is to stop the
being done here. / have to decide what
the amount of punishment shsl. be for
the Offer Sc itself; but the object is
Tnncilu f0 nd nthnr lilo
minded from doing the same act again.
The government is not severe in its
punishment, but it is infexible; and
what the court wants to know is, what
is to stop man like you from repeating
what you have done. My idea is that if
a man does wrong he will be punished
adequately for it. If you will put your
finger in the fire, as l said to another
man just now, you will get burned. If
you transgress the law, you will be pun
ished. The same result follows IN both
cases. In these cases | have to eXer-
else my best and soundest discretion.
The sentence OF the court is that you
pay fine of SIS and be incarcerated in
the Penitentiary for eighty-fYe days,
and you stand committed until the fine
is pad.
MR.. wooLLEY's CASE.
Samuel W Woolley, of Grantsville,
Tooele County, next pleaded guilty to
a charge of unlawful cohabitation.
Mr.. Young drew the attention of the
court to the fact that Mr. Bateman
and Mr. Woolley had surrendered
themselves, claiming that this showed |
good faith of an intention to obey the |
law.
THE CoURT-That was a tacit admis-
sion to that effect. The object of the |
law is to prevent repetition of the
offense. 1t is to reform the individual, |
to stop the offense and protect society,
and if man does not obey the law he
must take the consequences. The
question 10 how much punishment is
d ecessary to educate a man to differ
ent course. AS l said before. if / felt
satisfied that mere fine would prevent
you from doing this thing again, the
Court would not impose any further
punishment upon you; but have no
control over your future actions. l
cannot make any bargain with Grim
inal or anybody else. l have to take
you as you stand before me, and look
upon you from the offeDse to which
you have pleaded guilty. The sentence
or the court IS that you pay line or
$50, and be imprisoned in the Peniten-
tiary for ninety days. You will stand
till the fine is paid.
MISCELLANEOUS.
David P. Cook VS.. Margaret Vandbe-
barker; parties required to prepare and
submit findings of fact.
James Rawker VS.. .. A. North; mo-
ton of plaintiff to retax costs, argued
by W. w. Gee for plaintiffs and j. Fl.
Moyle for defendants, and continued
until to-day.
Martin D. Wardell vs.. Hannah War
dell; trial before court, default and de-
cree of divorce.
Augustus R. Garter ct al. VS.. j. G.
Dugan ct al. defendants, on stipulation
fled, allowed to withdraw demurrer
and file answer and case continued.
The case of Frank II. Dyer. receiver,
vs.. Angus M. Cannon, was then taken
Up, P. L. Williams appearing for plant
tiff and J. G. Sutherland for detendant;
plaintiff declined to prosecute and the
court awarded decree for the defen-
liant. This was another of the COM