Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-12-11
HOST IMPORTANT CASE ON
49, APPEAL.

too late for publication, we learn
that The c7s- Of VIM. J.. Basseti
against the United States, on appeal
from the Supreme Court of Utah to
the SuUreune Court Of the United
States, was ably argued before tn.
last named Court on "Wednesday.
the 10 . inst, by Hon. F. S. Rich
ards. who with Hon. c. C Rich
ards o. Ogden, is counsel for the ap-
peilant. Mr.. Richards occupied two
hours in his argument, the mair
points Of which we are able TO pre-
sent to our readers.
The history Of the case is briefly
iris: william f. Bassett was in
dicted for polygamy on the 2srd OF
Move n6er, 1856, by the grand jury
Of the First Jl5icial District of Utah
It was charged that be married
Kate Smith on The 18th of August.
1854, when Sarah Ann Williams
was his living aud lawful wife. Mr.
Basseit wss subsequently divorces
from his legal wife but at the tins
when ealIeyfd unlawful marriag.
took place Sarah Ann was the legal
wife. Itwas from her testimony
alone rs 70 Turported admissions
made TO her by her husband thai
the indictment was found.
On this ground a motion was
made 90 qIash the Indictment. but
ii was overruIed. The case went t,
trial. plea Of not guilty was enter
cd, he vas convicted and on Janu-
airy &, lssT. he was sentenced to a fin.
OF fics hundred dollars and impri-
Onment for five years. Appeal was
taken, AMI & Haliy reached the court
Of last resort
The following assignment Of
srroTs Was presented 10 the court:
First-The District Court erred in
permitting Mrs. Sarah Bassett. the
former Legal wife Of the plaintiff il
error, asEinS bis objection. 10 testilg
70 ? con AIc q: III communication made
to her by him. while they were hus-
band and wiz. and 10. in the pres
ence ofany other Ver>an-
Saccnd-The Court erred in denying
The challenge Of plaintiff in error 10
the juror, Andrew Larsen. and IL
permit ing him to sit - u juror IN the |
case, agtin-I tho objection OF IN.
plain III IN error; the said Andrew
Larsen being Then and there disquali-
fed TO aei Is q juror in the case De-
eau @ he La3 been 9 polygamist.
Third-The Court erred in charging |
the jury Tat Il was not bound 10 be-
lieve the testimony Of any witness OF |
ofany number Of Witnesses.
FouTth-The Court erred in over
ruiinE the mot on OF plaintiff in error
70 dismiss the case. after the pr seen.
lion rested, brcluse there was n
testimr ny tending 10 establish hi.
guilt. cNcen; the ALLEGED confession
testified 10 by his fo.mer wife, which
was wholly " orsoborated.
These are important points and i,
is hoped the Court W. / pass upen
them al, IS they are likely to after
other csses that may BE tried ii
Utah.
On he first alleged error Mr.
r chards argued that Mrs. Basseu
should not have been permitted (,
testify against her husband at al
wirhsut mis- consent. But if sh.
might 80 testify she certainly wa,
not Competent to testify as to conf.
DENTAL communication from he,
husband. This is a policy 50 wei
established that it was scarcel,
needful 10 offer authorities in it
support But counsel cited Green
leaf on Evidence rs follows:
4tSac ion S3i.-Tusbaud and Wife
The rule hyvhich parties are excluded
from being witnesses To- themseIve,
applies 20 The case Of husband ana
wife, neither Of them Icing adnissibl,
as wines IN q cause. civil or Grim.
NAL in which The other j a marty
This exclusion IS founded partly or
the identity OF their legal rights and
Interests. aud partly on the principl.
Of public policy. which lie a, the
bass Of civA society. For t is essen
-ial 10 the happiness OF social life tina
ne oonnten~e sibSisting between hu.-
hand and wife should be sacresiiv pro-
iectsd and cherished in its mos: nm
limited extent; and to break down O,
impair the great principles which
protect the an ,iiics Of that relation
would he to destroy tie hes; solace Of c
human e-ist=nee.
''Sec,i0n 5}7.-Neiiher is II material :
hat this relation no longer exists
The great 0h-eas q the rriie is TO secur, :
domestic happiness by placing the c
'r'tectng seal 81 The law upon al d
= n;idcntial communications between 4
lushand end VIE: and Whatever ba, u
ONE 10 The knowledge Of either by :
means Of the hallowod confidence
which that relation inspires. cannotb I,
iler"Fris divulEed in testimony. 4,
ven thog=h the o. her parry be n, A.,
'nger living. and even where a wifi. !,
Tho had been divorced by get Of Par :,
ameut, and had married another :
erSon was offered as 4 witness byih, :,
'ainiI, 10 prove a contract against ie
ar iofner husband, Lord Alvanv y
I'D her Clearly incompetent: adding u
lin h's Characteristic energy. = ID
sver snail be- endured tha, The conf e
anee which The lazy has created Ia
nile the PARTIES remqined II The mos so
.tinats Of All relations. shall be -,
-oken whenever, ~ the misconduct I'll
one party Inc relation has been in
SOLVED ~
Counsel also cited the railing o
@ Supreme Coat o. the Uniteo L,
a;es Ia the case o. S cen ". Boa .,
Al, from which we make thes. "a
-reet.: a.
III is admitted in al the eases that ri
VIE IS net competent. except in Vi,
'es cfyiolence upon her person. di. a..
i,is 70 cr-Hiiiats Ter husband. or 10 M,
g os- Inst which she has Iearnet m,
m hin u thcir confidential inter- . :
Use
And a. conceived that this prin- ;u.
ic d1es not merely afford prctec- s,s
I" Lle husband aud wife which ~,
y arc - Liberty to invoke or not. n ,;,,,
n discretion, when the question is h.
l-s.l,Ll.Inr. L.. I. - L. =,