Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-09-20

hiz rgIii. OF course, Il IN,
nhst wife hal been actually dca,
e - would have seen a gooI defense
Lut a belief that She was was n,
I, defense until the expiration Of tn,
five Year, Consequently /. wa,
% NOT error T. exclude the testimony.
The court further stated that nc
testimony going TO prove that the
defendant actually believed his fri
: wiie dead was really offered. but
the court would treat the question q
IL such evidence had been tende7,..l.
The motion for n RES trial was
Oyerru,ed.
Relative 20 the motion in arrest OF
Judgment, the court observed that il
|as based upon three grounds:
lst, an omission in the Indictment OF
the date and place of the fret fn1r-
rage; End, defendant had no. been
served with true copy Of the ill.,
dictment there being a variance in
the form Of the name OF the seco.ii
wife Is given in the original indict-
/ ment and the copy; Sri, the joining
! o! two distinct felonies, VIZ. big
amy and adultery in the same in
I dictmGnJ.
Respecting the first ground, the
court hell that Il was not Necessary
that the Indictment sho-ll state thb
time ana place OF the first n lrri az.
On the second groun i was held to
/ he too late 10 bring IL III after the
Z verdict, i! RAISED at all il should he
/ called 10 the attention Of the court at
/ tue opening Of the trial.
Relative 10 the third ground,
Judge Anderson sail the IwO Of
lenses arose out OF the same state
/ q facts, and their being Joined ia
I the same indictment was author
lied by section 1884 OF the Revised
Statutes Of the United States.
AIr. Ferguson, the Defendants
attorney, asked. SIS adultery die
tinct from bigany? Only thre.
days ago this court instructed the
grand jury to the effect that the
cfi'ense o. unlawful cohabita-
ton iuciuded sexual commerce.
ami that, Therefore, the lstter
dIl not require to he proven.
By parity Of reasoning the ofTsnse
Of higsRy embraces sexual COM
mere, and to make n separate
felony OF the latter Is to divide one
cdsuse into two par;s.''
The Court thiuk rGt. II the
defendant hat no right 10 marry
the Eec5Sd wife. he had no right u
,ustain sexual relations with her
Z q regard tOunlawful combinations,
il has long been held by all the
courts Of this Territory that it j. not
Necessary 10 prove sexual Inter
course.
In this reply tire court failed 70
meet the Argument % Nj. Ferg Z
The next step Of the Litter wgs %
read an affidavit male by himself. Z
showing that for a peripi Of fivr 1
months last past aiiiaut had been ]
the Defendants counsel: that in that .
caplcity his relations hal been fTe-
queut AMI intimate with The tle- I
PENDANT; and that defendant had 4
plainly manifested 10 afiisnt, in r
manner which enabled sfiiaut 70 /
state the fact positively, that he, I.
the defendant was Insane AMI /
OF a dis9rleHesi Intellect, ard f.
had been for several n,crihs is. I
past aud was now Il state O. I
mind unfit e Receive the judgment I
81 ire court; wherefore aliant I
prayed for a writ % ltglofioO iqqs,i /
rsJtdO, that the mental condition o. /
the defendant might be determined /
in the manner prOvi lei by Law.
Mr.. Crit-hiJw read tbs statute I
applicable II the subject, aud 1
held that the inquiry cnuid 1
not properly be oriered uulrs,
NJ. FergusoB's ali isvit. coupled 1
with other Circumstances connected /
with the case, had the effect %
create 4 doubt in the mind 81 the
court OF the sanity Of The defendant. /
Alter some uiscu sion hstw-en |
counsel. the court observed that il |
was a late stage Gt which to spring 1
the q IesiiJu % the defcniant's san /
ity. that Mr. Ferguson had placed I
him CT the witness stand ~ a time 4
when be =mu>t have been as well
aware as he Is now OF ms mental con-
diaiOn. aud tbst il he was sane
enough TO testify he vas sane
enough Tor judgment. The
for the writ was denied,
sir. FergUson-We take an ex-
ception.
Mr.. Critchiow-we new move
for Judgment
air. FergusOn-We're ready 10
take it. subject to our exception.
The court ordered the defendant
10 stand IN, recited the facts u his /
Indictment and cUnvic;!o .. ana /
asked Il he had any legal re.s9n b
give why sentence should not now 4
be passed.
The defendant made a remark in
diclting that he did n0tunlersian1
what was going on.
Mr.. Fcrgus0u-That proves the /
mental condition Of the defendant 4
ID he rs / said. He DONE know
what he is standing up FOR.
The court again asked the defend
ant II be had anything TO say, and /
he proceeded 20 assert that when
he married Miss Evesill he believed
his first wife desd, de, laring that
man 10 Ogden who came from |
Oregon had told him 50, and he had /
tried to get wori from her and |
failed.
The court-Did you not state, be-
fore marrying Miss EveIil, that I
Won were not a married man and |
had never been?
Defendant-I was asked II | were |
a married man and my reply was, 81 |
have no wife"
Toe court-Did you not state that /
-. ....~air Fsn 4 hat "A rT-fFaF
Dsfendant-I don't remember ever |
-rhe COURT would like TO take |
testimony on that point. Is Ms
Everill present.
That lady took the witness stand,
aud in reply to questions put by the
r,urt. testified that, before his
marriage TO her daughter he had
I'D I rat he hal never been
married. had never seen n girl
whom he thought worthy TO become
bis wife. had never asked a woman
u marry MIN, and had come 10 tins
CITY expressly % marry a mormon,
girl If he could fad one worthy Of
MIN.
M. Ferguson 10 witness-DO you
rrard the defendant as OF SOUND
MINI?
Wisness-I regard him as sane,
aud a pretty smart man
The defendant was still standing
aud the court addressed some re-
marks 10 him discretiting his as
ssriion that he believed his first
wife dead when he married Miss
EveriIi. and treating on the Gravity
OF his onense in clouding the lives
OF two innocent young girls, and
concluded 10y sentencing him TO I'M
pr.sonment in the penitenhary Tor
two aud a half years on each count,
OF five years in all.
Mr. Furguson gave notice that