Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-08-02
Attorneys Attack Editorial in the
News" Of July q,
Is UNWORTHY OF BELIEF"
Meaning OF the Word "seaIedr Il ia.
piained In the Reply of Mrs.
Hilton.

The attorneys for Mrs. Annie F. A.
Hilton have filed a reply TO respond
ent's petition for rehearing in the
Park-Hilton case, which was filed yes
terday afternoon in the supreme ca t.
and published In last evenings News
The reply to the petition was filed late
In the afternoon after the News re-.
port closed, and II condemns as "un-
worthy OF belief the editorial which
appeared in the News on July 22
and which was attached to and made a
part OF the petition for rehearing for
the purpose Of showing that the SUI
preme court was mistaken az TO its
Interpretation Of the mean ne Of the
term sealed" according 10 the con
structloD placed upon IL by the highest
authorities in the Church.
Upon that point the reply reads as
follows. 1T is lncomprehensible that
learned counsel. such as petitioners,
should ask this court to reopen the
case without the citation OF one legal
authority. and upon the production of
d newspaper editorial attached to their
petition as an exhibit
THE proposition Is scarcely worthy OF
discussion. We do not think the court
VIII regard IL as complimentary. and
desire TO say in abiding to it, that wc
mean no disrespect to the court. but
simply to point out that the editorial
cited Is unworthy Of belief II Is I'm
journalism, what pettifogglng is I'm a
court, viz: an attempt to mislead the
court. AS evidence Of this, note one
statement made by the editor The
President Of the Church never issues
such documents Church 6iyorces) I'm
the case OF legal wife unless il has
first been passed upon by civil court
For contradiction of this statement see
the Norton-Tufts case. 10 Utah. where
Mrs. Wicket was granted a divorce by
the Church and remained many years
before she applied to the courts for a
divorce.
There are other statements IN the |
same editorial equally untrue and sus- |
ceptlble TO contradiction, but as the |
article Is In no sense authority, we re- |
frain from further discussion of II. If, |
however petitioners believe that the |
NNNn NAlNbllulH dlt NpllDcltNl uulNOI- |
lily, they might have cited some others |
that were written specially for this |
case, while II was pending In the trial |
court in which It garbled both ques-
lions Of Church law and OF fact
In conclusion the attorneys for
appellant contend that there was
no error In the opinion OF
the supreme court, and the court could
Tot, with due regard to the law and
facts, have done otherwise than de-
clare the law as laid down In It's opin-
.on. The attorneys maintain that no
further investigation upon the Seal
Ing" or Church marriage would alter
the result or afford relief to the parties
but simply prolong litigation and ex-
Jense
1t Is claimed that respondent refused
10 Introduce evidence to explain the
sealing ceremony" which, By her an
,wer was made the controlling issue
n the case, when she had her day IN |
curt, and she cannot now take adyant-
we of her own laches. Hence attor-
Ieys for appellant contend that the
pinion of the court as written Is the
orrect exposition Of the law, and a
udlcious determination Of the points
involved.