The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-05-01
LOOKS LIKE MISTRIAL
IN The ROBERTS CASE
CONTINUED from Page ID


1 proof of the guilt of the defendant
/ LIE court, moreover, had no jurisdic-
/ ton, as the crime had not been COM
mitted in Salt Lake county.
/ In answering the attorney for the de-
tense the court read the statute re-
/ ferring to the conviction of a person
for crime committed in a county 9TH
er than where the crime was commit
/ ted 1t read that when a public Of
/ tense shall have been committed in
| part in one county and in part in an
! other, or the acts or effects thereof
| constituting or requisite to the con
summation of the offense shall have
/ occurred in two or more counties the
/ jurisdiction shall be in any of these
! counties When a public offense shall
! have been committed near the bound-
/ aries of two or more counties the juris-
/ dlction shall be in any of those coun-
| ties
The arguments in the case were then
/ begun Mr.. PutRam's argument was
( practically a rereading of the deposit
/ tons. Mr.. MOyle's was a challenge to
! every part of the statement of facts.
/ He said that the question for the jury
/ 70 determine was whether the facts
/ that had been proved constituted CO.
habitation. 1t did not necesSitate the
proving of intercourse, as a charge of
L y
/ state the proving of cohabitation The
4 jury must bear in mind that within
/ the time specified in the information
the defendant must be shown to have
cohabited with DR. ShiDp
The Introduction to DR.. Miles as Mrs
Roberts was the only piece of evidence
IN any way showing that the defendant
and DR.. Ship We're together at any
time in the year of 1897. The most sub
I
state was that of Mr.. Letcher. But
that only showed that the defendant
was at the house of DIR. Roberts being
treated for a disease. 1t had shown
nothing further than that the defend
ant was in her house.
1t did not b. any means show that
the defendant was there living with
DR.. Shipp as her husband This
was the first fact shown for the year
1893. The next was the trip to POca-
tellO, when Mrs. McDougaI rode in
the same chair car with the defendant
and DR.. Roberts. When the train
stopped at Ogden he had introduced the
+ doctor as Sister Roberts, and once.
says the depOnent, as my wife" But
this was not in Salt Lake county. and
not within the lines constituted in the
information against the defendant
The incident at Saltair Beach was the
I III
together in 1898
AS to the evidence of Mcdaniel. it
did MOI refer to Dr. Ship, and no one
knew this better than counsel for the
prosecution. It was a general CONVEX
SatiOn between Mcdaniel and the de-
PENDANT and merely referred to what
had taken place in the past. 1t was
dead issue and had no bearing on the
case at bar.
Notwithstanding that every possible
agency on the part of the state had
been brought to bear in the search for
evidence against this defendant it had
only succeeded in finding him one time
IN the year 1897 in the company of the
woman with whom he was accused Of
unlawful Capitalization, three times in
1893 and not at all in 1899 within the
I time charged in the information. The
defendant might have cobahfted with
other women, but the evidence in the
case had not shown that he had done
so with Dr.. Roberts within the time
specified in the Information.
Moyle's Eloquent Conclusion.
rs it possible" concluded counsel
with burst of eloquence, that coun-
sci for the state would have you believe
that because a man sustains the rela-
tons of husband to a plural wife he
company? The individual who would
go 50 far as TO maintain that position
IS devoid of the milk of human kind
ness. Suppose that this defendant was
a degenerate and in the police court
charged with an Offense and the evil
dence Of the fact was no greater than
the evidence in this case, would you not
acquit him? Without q doubt you
would unless your hearts were made of
stone"
Mr. Putnam's argument was brief
he said that prior to 1897 DR.. Roberts
had been known as DR.. Shipp
If 1t is true, as counsel for the de-
Tense would have yOu believe, that the
couple were married d long time prior
to this date, why did DR.. Ship only
assume the name of Roberts in 1897?
| Why did they wait till the eleventh
hour to publish the fact of their mar
| riage? Were they ashamed TO own it
| before? Does it not look to you, gen
tlemen Of the jury, as if there were rea-
sons why they should not publish that
which did not exist after that date?
You know what the admission that the
doctors name was Roberts means.
Why, it can have only one meaning
that DR.. Roberts was the wife of this
defendant. You have a right to draw
your own conclusions as TO this. These
separate occasions when DR.. and Mr..
Roberts were seen together only indi-
cate what their relations must have
been ct the times when they were not
seen. There was no espionage kept on
| the couple. No one was set to watch
them during the two years that they
are said to have cOhabited.
In conclusion, / would only ask you
to consider the facts impartially and
honestly, in the light of evidence, and
that you viii enforce the law as quick
~ in this case rs you would in any
other kind of case"
The court then delivered his charge
to the jury. 1t was somewhat lengthy
The substance of it was that unlawful
conabitatiOn should be construed to
mean the living together of a man with
a woman who was not his wife and was
not meant to include intercourse be-
tween the parties The jury should con-
slider the names Of Ship and Roberts
as circumstances in the case.
If they believed that during the time
Of the information (froB1 January /.
1897, to July I, 1899 the defendant had
been living with both the women nam
ed in the information they must find
him guilty as charged, provided that
any of the Offenses had occurred in Salt
Lake county. If il appeared to them
beyond a reasonable doubt that the de-
PENDANT had lived with Sarah Louisa
Roberts. in Davis county. and Marga-
ret Ship Roberts. N Salt Lake county,
during the time named in the infOFma-
ton. they must find him guilty.
In conclusion, Judge NOrrell said:
You are instructed that you can on
" consider the acts of the defendant
prior to and after the times mentioned
in the information for the purpose of
holding out to the public the position
of Margaret Ship Roberts as the wife
OF the defendant"
At 40 n,cIoek DanntV Sheriff Navlnr