Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-06-23
ludre Norre.l Stands by Previous
Ruling IN Roberts Case
DEFENDANT FINED $3.50
Case WIN be Appealed statement OF
Mr.. uoyle Position NJ County
Attorney putnam

u. II. ROBOTS NAH'tNN'N ~
on Thursday last OF unlawful cohao'''-
ton appeared before Judge Norreil TO-
day for sentence The Judgment OF the
court was that the defendant should
nay a fine IN the sum Of $50 or In lieu
thereof that he bee Imprisoned IN the
county jail for a period Of 100 days
A thirty days stay was granted 10 or
der that the defendant might file bill
OF exceptions. The bond on appeal was
fixed at $500.
Mr.. MoYLEs STATEMENT.
The defendant entered the court room
a few minutes before 10 o'clock In the
COMPANY of his attorney Mr.. James II,
Movie After court had convened Judge
Norreu stated that this was the day set
FOR Mr.. Roberts sentence and his hon-
or asked n the defendant was ready
Attorney Moyle answered IN the ar
drmatiye and said that before the court
pronounced judgment he desired TO say
n few words. Counsel then briefly re-
viewed the history OF the case ana
claimed the defendant was entitled 20
consideration at the hands Of the
court. When the complaint was filed IN
the Justices court, charging the defend
ant with the Offense he had been con-
victed OF, he was In the city OF WASH
ington. Upon learning that proceedings
had been commenced against him ne
wrote the county attorney stating mat
II his presence was necessary he would
return 20 salt Lake without eXtradi-
ton papers From the first he was on
hand ready 10 meet the charge that had
been made against him, without put
ting the State to ans expense whatever.
The defendant had married his al
legged plural wife prior TO the mani
festO. He bad endeavored to keep With
In the law. In SO far as he mad failed,
II was due 10 no disposition TO disobey
the law but was on account OF the pc
cuiar marriage relations that prevails
20 some extent In this state.
Counsel had informed the county at
torney, prior 20 both trials, that no
would admit, FOR the purposes Of trial,
all the facts that he would say he could
prove. and thus avoid the expense 10
the State OF calling witnesses. There
was q serious question In cOunsels
mind whether the prosecution would
stand. FOR the reason that Il covered a
period OF time IN 1897. during which
counsel contended there was no law
against unlawful cohabitatlOn.
COURT WAS IN DOUBT.
Even the court had lntimated that It
was In doubt as 10 whether the infor-
nation would permit the Introduction
Of evidence showing eOhabitation in
Davis county.
Judge Norrell Cinterrupting)--Yes
sir, I have some doubt on that PROPOSE
ton OF law and think It should be
passed upon by the Supreme Court.
Continuing Mr. Moyle said the pro-
eeedings on the part OF the defendant
was practically plea OF guilty, SO far
as trouble and expense 10 the State
were concerned. The defendant In TAX
ing the course he had merely desired
TO have a construction u the law and
the determination Of his legal rights
involved In the prosecution.
SUFFICIENTLY PUNISHED.
Counsel thought his honor should
take into consideration the fact that
the defendants marital relations. re-
sulting from his religious convictions,
had deprived him OF one Of the most inn
portant offices In the gift Of the State,
20 say nothing OF lts emoluments.
That OF itself counsel said, was a
far greater punishment than the court
could innict
The defendant outside Of his marital
relations, resulting from the conditions
already stated, was one OF the most
honorable and respected citizens Of the
State.
He never had shown a disposition to
hsgrantly or wllfuuy disobey the law
Of the land. The court could well take
this fact and existing conditions into
consideration. and be lenient with the
defendant In passing sentence,
STATEMENT OF Mr.. PUTNAM.
Mr.. Putnam said II was true as Mr.
Moyle had stated that the defendant
wrote him from Washington stating
thst II he were charged with an exc
uadltable ofense he would return
without the necessary papers. But
counsel desired the court TO understand
that unlawful cohabitatlon was 70 mis-
demeanor and a man could only be eX-
tradited for a felony His honor was
conversant with the facts In the case.
II had gone 20 the jury upon an agreed
statement. on both occasions. az the
suggestion Of counsel for the defend
ant AS stated by Mr.. Moyle the dee
PENDANT had practically admitted his
guilt. and counsel thought he should Boz
made an example Of There were other
men in Utah Who had entered into tbs
same relationship AS tho defendant hut
they were obey'Dr the law me 5.-
PENDANT was man of prominence and
influence I'm the state on account 1f
the Impnrt9pre ~ no r.gition t. ....
cupied In me commupitv the sramUls
he SET had "a Rr-8t effect
.....-
WANTED TO ENACT A PROMISE.
or" continued Arr p,t,sr, o,t.g,
men convicted M nri1wfui "ob,bitg-