The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-12-31

II appears further that the plaintiff
stated to her, when he gave her the
paper, that il was not an acknowledg-
ment that she was guilty of adultery.
She was suspicious of it. and thought
lit so read He left it with her, and
while he was gone she copied it, and
took the copy of it to Mr.. Austin Mr.
Austin consulted with his attorney with
respect to it. It was confession.
There was an attempt evidently to de-
p ceive the woman She refused to sign
it. The evidence shows that about
that time the petition Tor divorce
against her was prepared, or at least
Twas being prepared.
Now. the question arises, what is to
be the effect Of that confession, in the
light Of her testimony and Mr. Irvine s,
3corroborated as she is by Mr. Austin.
II am not disposed to say in view OF
all the evidence with respect to that
confession and what occurred in those
rooms between her and her husband,
that that confession proves her guilty
It is true that this conduct that has
been disclosed at the Grace hotel IN
Chicago. and at the Mercer hotel IN
,Omaha. must be looked at in the light
LOT all the other evidence One OF the
circumstances is that in 1885, while
she was here with her husband tenn
porariIy, they went out to Garfield
beach with a party OF friends. The
3evidence shows that he objected to her
going into the water. He states that
the reason of his objection was that
her bathing suit was too small, but
there are great many sizes OF bath
ling suits of various sizes at Garfield
Beach; and if thai was too small, she
might have got another But she
states that he objected, and substan-
tally forbade her going in she was
lsitting on the pavilion, while others
were in the water, her husband among
them. 1t seems that she was weeping,
and Mr.. Montgomery, having come out
iof the water, went up to her and
asked her what she was weeping about.
He seems to have been man OF
sympathy And when she told her
story to him, he stated in substance
that Mr. Irvine must be mean man.
1t is true that the wife ought to be
very careful how she talks to other
gpeople about her husband, but II is
nevertheless true that virtuous women
when they conceive that they are
mistreated as she states she had been
at different times, are about as liable
Ito talk as those who are not VlrtuouS.
And though that was an 1mpudent act,
still | am not prepared to say that II
Indicates an intention upon her part,
or willingness upon her part, TO com
nit the crime of adultery with Mr..
!
vited her with another lady to take
a ride in a boat, and the other lady,
after they had been out short time
being unWell wished TO return 10 the
pavilion and did so, after which Mont
tgomery and the defendant took a boat
ride for about an hour II was IN
daylight. and I do not presume II is
insisted that any offence was com
United there, nothing further tnan
L.. hat
There are a number OF other Incl
dents. The defendant states that
while at Lincoln she received Mr..
Montgomery at her house one after
moon, and that there he talked with
lher about her husband and expressed
great attachment and love for her. as
she states, and intimated to her that
she had better get q divorce, and then
she could so with him While she
used the word ''go with him / did
not understand from the testimony
that she meant that she was to go
with him without being married to
him. go as his mistress, and l do not
think that would be a fair interpreta-
] ton of the testimony. But she de-
lclined. She spoke of her daughter.
and then it was agreed that the mat
ter should cease
There is no direct evidence by any
lperson who saw the offence, except
that of man by the name of Edward
[. Simon, who stated that he was a
lbricklayeT, and had been an assistant.
1 believe, to the doorkeeper of the
house of representatives of the state
lof Nebraska He detailed the circum-
stances under which he stated that
he saw the defendant and Mr.. Mont
gomery in a grove, out Of the buggy.
sitting on the lap robe, and that there
he saw sexual intercourse. But the
manner of the man on the stand, his
department, the unreaSonableneSS Of
his statements, and their inconsistency.
convince the most close observers who
witnessed his testimony. that he was
not telling the truth: and it hardly
needed. as 1 thought, the testimony of
the defendant to deny it. The court
l think. is authorized to believe that
that man was suborned. Why this
testimony should not have been taken
in Lincoln. where he lived. I do not
know; but he came all the way here,
a thousand miles. and got upon the
witness stand. That man was a sub
formed witness. and the differences are
that the plaintiff or some one who
was acting for him knew it. A man
who will suborn a witness is not
worthy of belief q man who Will
wilfully indunce another to swear TO
a falsehood will swear to a falsehood
himself.
There was also one occurrence tes-
tilted to by a woman by the name of
Ray Cameron, who stated in substance
that she had been prostituting for ten
Tor twelve years; starting in Scotland,
she had been in a great many cities
and places in the United States. She
STATED that she was the keeper of a
notorious house of i'll fame in the city
reputation and life comes here upon
LOT Lincoln, known as she stated, as the
Big Five" This woman, of this repu-
tation and life, comes here upon the
stand and teStifieS TO an unreasonab BILE
story She testified that she met this
defendant, who was then living with
her husband, and who had a daughter
IN the city of Lincoln. by invitation of
| Montgomery, in his room. That Mont
gomery there, in the presence of the
defendant and this harlot, proposed to
go with the defendant and the harlot
from Lincoln to Chicago, upon a public
train. She stated that there was some
other person there. but when asked for
the name she refused to tell, and was
sent to prison. After remaining there
two or three days she was DISCHARGED
finally without telling the name. The
probabilities are that the reason she
did not tell was, that she knew that if
she gave the name of any one it would
be ascertained whether there was any
lsuch person in Lincoln. and if there
was such person, the probability is She
would be prosecuted for perjury. She
was treading upon dangerous ground.
She declined to tell. 1 must condemn
this bringing of a prostitute, whose
testimony could have been taken in
Lincoln, to this city, away from where
she was known, to testify in this court.
by this man against his wife. It should
be discountenanced and condemned
by every rightminded person.
The court has no time To fafar RI :, II