The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-01-15


that the Stevens child has been ac-
corded no privileges whatever in the
Jennings home; that she was not sent
TO school, church or Sunday school,
that she was allowed no associates;
that she was despised by the other
inmates of the house; was poorly clad
and ill-treated. Learning this, Judge
McCarty yesterday roasted Judge
Jennings for seeking to disgrace the
little orphan by sending her to the
minors prison, when his treatment OF
her had all along been of just the char
acter TO produce a fit subject for the
reform institution. But yesterday the
court let it go at that, taking the mat
ter under Amusement and reserving
final judgment until this morning.
Among other charges that Judge
Jennings had preferred against the lit
tie Stevens wait was his allegation that
she had on a certain occasion been
criminally intimate with a boy whose
identity is not known; but he had
absolutely no proof Of this except the
girls own confession. which he said
she made to him when he accused her
of the crime. but in another affidavit.
he says that Lila is an habitual and
confirmed liar
IN ruling upon the case today Judge
McCarty dwelt at length upon the
glazing anomaly of at one time charg-
ing the little girl with fragrant and in
cessant falsehood and then attempting
to fix upon her more heinous crime
with nothing but her own word to sup
port the imputation; furthermore, the
judge even intimated that he doubted
Jennings veracity in crediting Lila
with a confession of unchastity.
The. court expressed the opinion that
if Jennings had told the truth when he
said the defendant would lie on the
most trivial occasions, it was very re-
markable that she would not lie when
accused Of a terrible crime, and ex-
ceedingly strange that Jennings would
not believe her on trivial occasions, but
based his prosecution on statements
which he said she made at a time
when, of all times. she might be ex-
pected to lie. The courts conclusion
was that either the girl had lied when
she told of illicit relations with an I'M
known boy, or her prosecutors lied
when they credited her with that con-
fession. In either case, she should not
be sent to the reform school. But [
viii say continued the court, passing
by the Inconsistencies of the testimony,
that if the evidence be true, as re-
lated by the witnesses herein, this lit
tie child has been the victim of two
infamous outrages, one committed
against her person, the other against
her character
Later on, Judge McCarty explained
this by stating that if Jennings had
spoken the truth, some unknown per
sons had assaulted the girl, thereby
committing the outrage against her
person; and that by seeking to send
her to the reform school, Jennings him
self had outraged the little orphans
character.
Now, if she made this confession
and the court doesn't venture to say
that, as a matter of fact she did, as
the court must consider not only that
part of the testimony that is unfavora-
bic to the child, but also that part that
is favorable, from the fact that it was
a stranger with whom she was alleged
to have been criminally intimately, she
never having seen him before and not
knowing who he was, it is almost GER
tain IN the mind of the court that if
anything of the kind took place it was
against her win.
THAT being the case continued
Judge McCarty, with meaning glanceS
at Jennings, instead of hunting down
the perpetrator who has outraged the
person Of this defenseless, fatherless,
motherleSS child, proceedings are in
stituted to send her, not to the state
prison, but to q place whittier, so far
as her character and future are con-
cerned, she might just as well go. I
say that of the two outrages perpe-
trated against this girl, the commence
ment of this prosecution is the most
reprehensible. If there be
any case that would warrant civil pro-
ceedings for defamation of character
that has ever been called to my atten-
ton, think this is the one
Judge McCartv had appointed Stew
art & Collins to defend the girl. They
had moved to dismiss the case, and
Deputy NJ. L. Brown, representing the
state, had practically concurred in the
motion, which was granted. The upshot
is that the orphan child will be taken
from the Jennings home and given in
to the care of Mr.. and Mrs. Joe King,
who viii send her to the public school.
HANSON PLEADS.
The state of Utah VS.. Peter Hanson
M. L. Brown is prosecuting and Rapp
& Bean defending. Motion to quash
was denied and plea of
not guilty entered. Hanson is accused
of horse-stealing.
LAND CASE DISMISSED
Thomas P. Jensen VS.. Charles Chris
Jensen ct al. Upon the plaintiffs own
motion the case was dismissed, at his
cost. This is the matter in which the
pldIHltll attempted TO quiet QeIeHudnI
title to pre-empted land, claiming that
before they secured patent,
bargained to sell the land to plaintiff.
Defendants proved that there was no
such agreement, and that, even if there
had been, it would have been void and
contrary to United States
statutes. There were two other similar
cases against Christensen ct al, in
which MAIDS Nielsen Demstedt and Carl
Anderson were plaintiffs. In all three
Smith, Nielsen and Shipp, Salt Lake
City lawyers represented the plaintiffs,
and NJ. l.. Brown the defendants. The
other two were also dismissed at plain
tiffs' cost and motion.
The Utah Implement company VS.. c.
T. Bunker ct al; plaintiffs motion for
continuance granted.
The Consolidated Implement com
pany VS.. A. Bunker; motion to strike
cut a portion Of the defendants an
swer taken under Amusement.
Court adjourned until 10 a. m. Jan.
a.