Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-12-16


founded. The question of Z conspiracy,
then, must he east aside altogether ~
unworthy OF any crclence whatever.
Maggie FOrknef'a evidence, standing
alone, would not he entitled to M
much weight ~ that Of many other
persons; but even che was not yet a
common prostitute, and her statements
certainly bore the impress Of truth
upon their face. She was seeking no
pardon, and could have had no hope
Of reward. But the central figure IN
this prosecution, aa n witness, was
Anna Prindl.. aud he was willing 10
conccde, for the purpose OF argument,
that this prosecution should stand or
fall upon the truth or ialsity Of her
statements. Counsel proceeded, NJ
he stated, TO lay bare the
lie and character Of the woman Pfin.
die, tracing her career from the time
she began to earn her own livelihood,
In her own native place In Minnesota,
aud the following up Of her profession
asa nurse In this city, In which capac.
ity Sue won the good opinions Of those
whom she served. IL there was con.
Hpiracy, where, he asked, was the
motive to be found ON her part2 II she
was an impure woman, n prostitute, or
n blackmailer, she might have said to
the marshal, 81 have got The whip on
you now; you will get this aud that
done" aud used u against him. Her
conduct In this regard had been that oi
true and chasio woman. Her
first statement filled his mind with
the conviction Of truthhilness; and
| he would rather resign his Office
than do anything contrary to his con.
vlctiOn. Counsel denied that there
was any evidence tending In the least
degree to show that Miss Prindle was
the "carousing prostitute" or lewd
woman which The defense had sought
TO make her out. What object could
she have had In connecting story
which, II true, would blast this mans
life for ever? But there was not n
particle Of testimony 10 disprove what
she had said. That she had an aficc-
ton for Mas,rnon, he had no doubt
was true, but there was an utter abb
seuce Of proof NJ TO any criminal rela-
tons between the parties. There was
no testimony ~ show that she had any
enmity towards the marshal, and when
this case was carefully looked Into In
all its details, and they reviewed
Miss Prndlc's evidence calmly
aud dlspasslonstely, who could
doubt the truth OF u? Her
explanation ~ TO the reason why
she lid not tell her mother " her
trouble was monument 10 her virtue
| greater than the testimony Of all the
witnesses they had heard Of here; aud
/ the fact that she pref rted 10 so IL
/ prison rather than have divulgul the
only defense which could save her
was another evidence that ner rcputa.
ton for truth AMI chastity was mol
what counsel for the dcfens. had
sought vainly 10 show. lie insisted
thai the pro secution had established
their case.
JUDGE HENDERSON FOR THE DEFENSE
Judge Henderson followed on tn,
/ part OF the defendant. He said 0
charge had been male against n high
officer Of this Territory which involved
not only his morality, his standing a.
u man, but which affected hi. standing
As al officer. and II It Were true, u
stamped him rs one absolutely with
out honor In any way. There
was involved In this iuves
/ tlgatlon and ia thi. question
that which would utterly ami ab-o'
/ lutcly destroy man aud hisreputatlnr
and that Of his family ON the one side
or cxonefate him from serious and
| Infamous charge on the other. IL re-
quiTed u degree ~ evidence 10 make q
| false charge Of this kind, which would
stamp the person who made II with
more iniamy than the defendant In thi,
case would be stamped II found guilty
He asked Mi. Stephens 10 exercise a
little Of the good sense and charity that
lac had exercised towards "this lady,
Ms he had called her, when he cauic "a
deal with the reputation Of an officer, q
husband and u father. II tho defense
could show In this ease that this woman
had made false statements about any
one material matter then what
became Of Mr.. Stephens' theory
/ IL any oue Of tue chnrgea made
against the marshal was shown 10 bU
absolutely false, II should apply TO all
of them. The charge mlio against
the defendant was similar TO that o
rape-.it alleged force against the viii
OF the woman. IL involved exactly
the same question, and he commended
therefore, that the court should con.
slider II In that light anu 70 de,ermln,
from the testimony bearing upon II,
Flint, the court must determiu,
whether crime had been committed
second, whether there was reasona0l,
cause to believe the defendant guilty
OF that crime. Proceeding 10 look al
the facts IN the case ns whole, Judg,
Hendcrson answered some OF the 70
merks OF Mr.. Slephons In his opening
/ HaHI
the Jndge, that the defense had Otiorel
TO show specific acts and been ruled ou
over anu over again? Did he moi
know that when the witness pTindl,
herself was upon the stand, Jnst us soot
as any quest on was asked rs TO hel
reputation II was objected 20 and tn,
objection was sustained? They wer,
told they could show absolutely moth,
Ing but tho witness general reputa
ton; In other words, they could mol
show her true character. There was 0
difference between character and rep
utation. The one was what the person
actually IL; the other what she was re-.
puied TO be- In the community. Was II
fair, then, that the prosecution could
turn TO them tauntingly aud say, "You
have not shown anything herr?" Tn,
defense had a gentleman ON IN,
stand that morning who had
Information which he was ready "a
give, aud yet he was prevented from
telling what he knew. He would not
say that this was Improper but It was
wrong.
These terrible accusations against
Marshal Parsons came from source
which cast discredit upon them. The