Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-02-04
ANNA MARKS IS IN LUCK
Supreme Court Decision in Eureka Shooting
Case.
CAUSE ReMANDED-NtW TRIAL ORDERED
Company Va stephens ct AN
Ray Sues for Divorce.

The Supreme court delivered mn
OF Utah against Anna Marks. reversing
the judgment of the lower court, re-
mandng the cause and granting new
trial.
Mrs. Marks is the woman who got
into an alteration with Patrick Shea
at Eureka in May, 1897 in pull
ing gun and firing a number of shots.
The trouble arose over n vacant lot in
the rear OF Mrs Marks residence,
10 which both the woman and Shea
claimed the right of possession The
lot has been used for years prior by
Mrs. Marks as a means of insress to
her coal sheds. She, however. was de-
termined that this state of things
should no longer exist and accordingly
on the afternoon of the day named,
Shea got number of men together,who
began to dig post holes with II view
of fencing the property in. Mrs. Marks,
not to be outdone proceeded to de-
molish the boards as fast as they were
nailed on. While the men along with
Shea, was putting in post Mrs. Marks.
ii is alleged. came up and told them II
they didn't stop she would kill them.
As the post was raised, she commanded
the men at the point OF revolver to
retreat which they did when she fired
four shots, one bullet, 1t was claimed,
striking the post about the height of
Shea's breast. Mrs. Marks was sub
sequently arrested and charged with
hp lima .f t.lf ms n N
Shea with intent to commit murder.
Upon trial she was found guilty of an
assault with u deadly weapon with in
tent to do bodily harm. The court
thereupon imposed a fine of $500, and
that she be imprisoned In the State
prison at the rate of 81 per day until
the fine was paid. From this judgment
the defendant appealed.
Numerous assignment of errors were
cited, but the only ones considered by
the court were the admissability of
certain testimony and the charge of the
lower court judge to the jury.
After Mrs. Marks had testified in her
own behalf, the prosecution called
witness In rebuttal for the purpose of
impeaching her character.
The question propounded was, do
you know her reputation in that COM
munity for truth, honesty and integ
rity?"
Inc court nDluS tnHt tne form OF the
question was improper and adds that
in impeaching the credibility of wit
ness the Inquiry must be confined to the
general reputation of the witness in the
locality referred to. The word gen
eral," the court says, should always be
used In propounding the question. Con-
tinuing the court says:
when character is fact to be es-
tablished 1t may be proved by an
other fact, namely: General reputa-
ton. In ascertaining what that general
reputation Is, 1t is important to call
those witnesses who are acquainted
with II generally A person may have
a bad reputation among very limited
set OF people, or among his personal
enemies, while his general reputation
in the community would be good. So
a person may have a limited reputa-
ton, and witness may truthfully tes-
tify that he knows 1t, and that 1t is bad,
while the general reputation in the
community may be unknown to the
witness, or II known, such reputation
may be good with reference to the
speech OF the people generally"
The court then sets out the form of
the question on the impeachment of
witness. after the one under examina-
tion has been shown to have knowledge
OF the general character OF the one
sought to be impeached, which is:
do you know what the general rep>
utation of John Doe is for truth and
veracity in the neighborhood where he
resides" If the question Is answered
In the affirmative,th next question will