The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-10-01
bedded together as man and wife.
The Probability of His Story.

defendant. Upon all occasions they
The Probability of His Story.
Defendant denies any sexual rela-
tons after March, 1889, when the FAM
lily left Salt Lake City. 1t is not nee
essary for me to pass upon the proba-
bility of this story. He also introduces
in evidence some eight or nine letters
claimed to have been written to him
by plaintiff, and in some of which she
writes of herself as his mistress and
of their mutual sin and the status of
their child. These letters are not adj
mitted by plaintiff, but are testified to
by defendant as having been received
from plaintiff The plaintiff teStifieS,
however, that in 1SS9-just when,
whether before or after the birth Of the
child she does not remember-the de-
PENDANT, IN a moment of irritation, told
her she was not his wife; that for the
time she believed she had been sacri-
feed, and the thought had an alarming
effect upon her; that at times she was
not responsible for what she did or
wrote. In this she is corroborated by
her mother. Afterwards, she states
defendant informed her that he did
not mean what he said, and this very
nearly satisfied her.
These letters are but pieces of evil
dence to be considered and weighed
with all other evidence, in the light Of
the circumstances. If the plaintiffs &C
count is true, the statements in some
Of these letters, so confidently relied on
by defendants counsel are satisfactor-
lily explained. We may well imagine
the effect of a young and trusting wo-
man and mother, of a claim made by
the father of her child that she was
not his wife. when she had supposed
herself to be lawfully married. If not
his wife. what could she be but his
mistress, and the woman and motherly
instinct would impel her to implore the
man she believed had betrayed her, to
marry her. These matters may all
properly be considered upon the final
hearing.
In addition to the evidence referred
to there is an admission of the defend
ant, testified to by the witness Hansen.
Mr.. Hansen, who is a, reporter on a
daily newspaper testifies that about
two years ago he interviewed defend
ant for his paper, and asked him con-
corning a claim made by plaintiff that
she was defendants wife. The defend
ant said plaintiff was or had been his
wife, but was not now This is denied
by the defendant and the witness Gill
lespie. who is defendants nephew and
partner in business. The fact that
there are other admissions of defend
ant testified to by apparently reputa-
BILE witnesses, would naturally lead me
to give credence to Mr.. T1ansen's story.
He is, moreover, so far as appears
quite disinterested, and to the knowl-
edge of the court has the reputation in
this community for probity and credi-
bility. Now, what effect is to be given
to all these admissions. proven, or at
least supported, by evidence apparent
w credible? 1t is suggested that they
do not tend to prove a legal marriage,
nor a marriage at the time and place
stated in the complaint. I do not con-
cur with this. A marriage may be
proven-even in criminal cases-by the
admissions of the party, and whether
the admission of the fact of marriage
is to be taken as an admission of a
lawful marriage in accordance with
the laws Of the country where solemn
lied. is to be determined by the jury
or court which tries the fact.
u. S. VS.. Miles, 103 U. S. 81.
His Conduct Tended to Prove Mar
rage.
BY admissions I refer to- the conduct
and acts of defendant touching his ap-
parent relations to plaintiff. These
tend to prove a9lawful marriage. Adj
missions, VerDdI or Dy conduct, 90 not
constitute marriage, but they are evil
dence of the fact, and sometimes, par
ticularly if deliberately made and pre-
cisely identified, afford most satisfac-
tory proof. AT this time 1 certainly
cannot ignore this evidence.
Upon the whole I am of the opinion
that the plaintiff has made out her
case sufficiently for the purpose of this
motion. and is entitled to ahmony;
that the sum of $40 per month is nee
essary for the support of the plaintiff
and child, beginning with the 29th day
of August. 1885, the return day of the
order to show cause; that $75 is now
necessary as suit money; and 5000 is
now necessary and reasonable as coun-
sci fees.
The order of the court is that within
twenty days from entry thereof the
defendant do pay to the clerk as suit
money for the use of plaintiff SIS, and
for the use of plaintiffs counsel, $500;
that on the 1st day of October, and on
the first day of each succeeding month
defendant pay to the clerk of the court
as temporary alimony for plaintiff the
sum of $40, and that defendant do with
in ten days, pay the further sum Of
$40 as alimony for September from the
date of the return day of the order
to show cause.
Let an order be drawn accordingly
with leave to plaintiff to make addi-
tional application if her necessities re.
Quire It.