The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-18
SHE rs In CONTEMPT.
The Supreme Court Decides
Against Mrs. HendricksOn.
MUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
TAKEN to the United States
Supreme Court.

ChSc vi hccLcI oSuuIlChsOu, VI Okucu,
who had been committed to the Pen.
for contempt by Judge Henderson, be-
cause of her refusal to answer certain
queries propounded to her by the Ogden
Grand Jury. Judge Foreman delivered
the opinion, below:
The petitioner was adjudged guilty of
contempt, and committed to prison for
refusing to answer question pro-
pounded to her by the Grand Jury of
the District Court Of Ogden, when she
was a witness. The Grand Jury had
under investigation charge of polyg-
amy against one John Hen tricks on,
and had received testimony tending to
show that said John Hendrickson had
married TWO women on the LIST day of
January. 1885, at the same time, by the
same ceremony or on the same day.
namely, said Hester Hendrickson and
another woman named Mary Lloyd.
When the petitioner had been sworn as
witness before tie Grand Jury, she
claimed that she was the lawful wife of
such she was exempt from giving tes-
timony. Upon inquiry by the Grand
Jury touching her claim of exemption,
she testified, without objection, that
she was married to said John Hend-
rickson on the LIST day of January, 1885.
Further, with view to ascertain
wheih her in fact she was the lawful wife
OF SAID John Hendrickson as she
claimed. the Grand Jury asked her
whether John Hendrickson, On the
same day that she married him, mar
ried another woman nared Mary
Lloyo?s she declinedsto answer this
question, ard the matter was referred
to the court. The Grand Jury and the
witness were, by the court, instructed
that it was
THE DUTY CT THE WITNESS TO ANSWER
the question and answer ali questions
put by the Grand Jury touch ng the
Inquiry as to whether she really was
the lawful wife, or not, of said John
Hendrickson, and that her testimony
could not be used by the Grand Jury
against said John Hendrickson if it
Should appear that she was the lawful
wife; that the inquiry was made with q
view merely 10 asc rtain whether she
was such lawful wife or not.
Upon returning to the grand jury
rOom she a. ain declined to answer the
question, and the matter was again re-
! ferred TO the court by the grand jury.
| The witness was asked by the court. in
the presence of the grand jury, whether
she would answer the question. She
replied that she would not, and would
not obey the order of the court re-
curing her to do so. The court ad-
judged her guilty of contempt and
committed her to prison, there to re-
main uutil she should answerthe Ques-
ton or be legally discharged.
The matter for our examination is
whr Their the court had the authority to
remit to the Grand Jury the question
as to the competency OF the petitioner
as a witness. and this question de-
pended upon the proof of fact. If she
were the lawful wife OF said John
Hendrickson she was primG fdcie a
competent witness, under the first
section of what is commonly known as
the EGmunGs-Tu law of Congress.
Comp. Laws of U alb o, 1888, p. ia
Bat by the same law it appears that il
she were the lawful wife she could not
in case against her husband be COM
PEELED to testify against her consent.
In order to ascertain
WHETHER SHE WAS THE LAWFUL WIFE,
it was necessary to ascertain whether
she was the first wife. That was clearly
question of fact. The question which
the Grand Jury asked the witness
plainly showed that the object of in :
quiry was whether really the witness
was the first wife as she ella med to be.
II she were not, her claim of exemption
from testifying would fall. Before the
Grand Jury could require her to testify
in the case against John Hendrickson
they must be satisfied that she was not
the frat wife The question of the
comp etency was one of mixed law and
fact, but not gu sti' n OF doubtful, law
such one as they would need the ad
vice of the court upon. The Grand
Juries are and always have been bodies
of extensive powers. Their examinations
are in secret, and these extensive powers
are given to them that they may be en-
aoled to privately and thoroughly
SCARF b out the truth in all cases. They
are given, to some extent at least,
powers to pass upon legal questions,
under the direction of the court. Our
Territorial statute says-"The Grand
Jury can receive none but legal evil
dence, and the best evidence in degree,
to the exclusion of hearsay or secon-
darv evidence" e Comp. Laws of 1883,
p. 684, s.4914.) The Grand Jurles are
thus to be guided
BY THE GENERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE,
subject only to the supervisory charge
and control of the court. If witness
refuse to answer any question, the
Grand Jury cannot enforce tie rule
requiring aan answer, but must refer
that matter to the court. The court
can then only inquire whether the
| question is q proper one. Here the
| inquiry was as TO the competency of
tbs witness. The question asked by
the Grand Jury, and which the wit
ness refused to answer, would have
aided the Grand Jury very materially
in ascertaining as fact whether her
claim of being the first wife was
valid or not. If she had answered
that she knew of no one else hav-
ing been married to the accused on
that day the answer would have
tended to confirm her claim of ex-
emption, but had she made answer
that another woman was married
to the accused on that day, further
inquiry may have disclosed that such