The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-15
He HAS TWO NAMES.
The Strange Case of William
Walton Price:
TWO MORE HORIZONS ESCAPE.
Hiram Barton Pleads Guilty-The
chinese Murder Caae-Polics
Court Piokings General.

William Walton Price, at one time
resident of Salt Lake City, but now
confined in the Penitentiary on the
charge of unla Iful cohabitation, finds
himself in a rather peculiar position,
although it may be that he will be able
TO extricste himself, by the aid of his
attorney, without serious results be-
falling him, Some time ago, be left
this city and went to Utah County,
where he was arrested and convicted of
the offense for which he is now O
guest of the government. 1t ap-
pears that he is the possessor of
cwo names, and is as well known
q William Walton as he is as William
walton Price. 1t was under the former
name that he was indicted in the First
District, and on being arraigned and
asked if that were his true coenomen,
he answered that it was, evidently with
the idea that he might as well go to the
Penitentiary with that name as with
any other. He scarcely imaRined, how
ever, what the result would be. His
sentence has nearly expired, and in
has several legal problems to confront.
1t appears that an indictment was
found against him in this district,
and that the deputies have been
diligent in their search for him, never
dreaming that he was already victim.
The question now arises, will he be
liable 10 prosecution in this DISTRICT
In the meantime. however, he has
given bonds for his appearances when
wanted, 10 he Will be able to emerge
from the Penitentiary when his present
sentence expires.
ANoTNER WATERLOO.
Mr.. Peters met another Waterloo in
in the Third District Court yesterday,
one Mormon being tried and acquitted
and another being discharged for want
of evidence to convict.
The case of Harvey a. Perkins was
the one wherein the prosecutor met
with disastrous defeat.
In opeaing the case Mr.. Peters asked
that the witnesses be separated.
The Judge hesitated q moment, and
then said he did not deem it necessary,
at all. .
MR. PETIRs (coolly)-In my judg-
ment it is necessary, and the statute
requires that it may be done on request
of either party.
THE JUDGE-You may refer me to the
statute.
The statute, however, could not be
found.
Mr. Peters insisted that such a course
had been the usual one in this Territory
in this class OF cases.
The JUDGE-Well, when think it is
necessary | will order it.
MR PETKRs-Very well; I have done
my duly.
Helen Perkins was called and the at
torney proceeded to examine her.
Mr.. Moyle called the atteDtio of the
court to the fact that the lady was the
lawful wife Of the defendant, and asked
that she be instructed that she need
not estify unless she so desired.
THB JUDGR-But that fact does not
appear YET.
Mr. MoTLs-But she hasn't been
asked.
TIE JUDGE-Well, I'll allow you to
prove that fact now, if it b, fact.
Further questioning revealed the fact
that she was the legal wife.
Mr. PETERS latter STENCIL have
no more questions. She has declined
to testify and the court excuses her.
THE JUDGE-The law excuses, not the
court.
Susie Duncan was called and the ex-
amin nation of the prosecutor was barren
of results.
Samantha Wiley followed Miss Dun
can. She didn't know the defendant,
and had never seen him at
the house Of either of the ladies alleged
to be his wives, and did not know what
the reputation of the defendant as to his
relations with Sarah Simons, the alleged
plural wife, was.
LoUIsA CoLTRIN might just as vel;
have remained at Woods Cross for all
the benefit the prosecution derived
from her testimony.
SARAH SIMoEs was married to de
PENDANT in 1880 in iSalt Lake. She lived
at the FIRST Wife's house about four
years, and then moved away. Perkins
had supported her, but she did not
| take his name when she married him.
Visit at the first wife's house occasion :
ally. Have not seen the defendant
| for four years. He rented his land and
the lessees brought her her support.
Hs visited her house few times after
she first moved there. He ceased his
visits in February, 1885.
4AI' eGeIS uHue So6ECulnS luV65u@
CATION, but finally let 60 his hold ar d
sank back in his chair. :
The jurors smiled. ....-,s ..s
Mr.. PETERs-We rest.
Mr.. MoYLE-So do we.
Mr.. SHEEks-Mr. Peters, do you ask
for any thing? -- ~
The JuDeE-Do you desire to press
the Indictment
Nh. PETERs-No; under the evidence
l shall ask for nothing but an acquittal.
And tbs acquittal came.
FOR KILLING A CHIEANAN.
The case of the People VS.. Henry
Clemens. who was indicted for murder
on the 18Th uf February, 1884. for the
killing of Park City Chinaman named
Lee Quee in Ssptem Der, 1883, was, on
motion of G. w. Hall. who has peen
r