Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-11-13
TESTIMONY IN
THE HILTON CASE.
attorney for Plaintiff is Called
Down Very Fmphatically by
The Court
"SEALIRC" STILL THE THEME.
Cross Examination Of c. w. Penrose
Productive Of yerltable I'usiIade of
Queries, Objections and Replies.

The cross examination OF Mr.. G. W.
Penrose in the Hilton Mccormick case
was concluded I'M Judge Halls court
yesterday afternoon, but counsel for
the defense desired to present further
question 10 the witness 80 the case was
continued until Monday morning at $3.50
o'clock ut which time Mr. Pcnrose will
again be placed on the witness stand
Several lively encounters occurred
between the witness and Atty. Jones
during the REORGANIZATION and on
one occasion the court found II ncces-
sary to rebuko the attorney for his UNI
called for attack upon the witness.
Atty. Stewart interposed many objec-
tions to the manner in which the at
torney for plaintiff conducted the cross
examination, several Of which were
sustained by the court
one OF the first questions asked In
the afternoon was IN relation to section
1872 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Mr..
Jones asked whether that was a law to
the Church. The attorney wanted a
direct answer yes or mo" but the
Witness replied
1t Ii a law to the Church according
TO It's own language and import, that
is my answer"
The court allowed the answer TO 70
into the record.
Attorney Jones attempted to get the
witness TO reply to questions comparing
the weight Of his opinions to that of the
utterances OF Church authorities hut
the witness said he had given no opiu.
ions of Church doctrines or ordinances
In this court, and the Judge ruled the
question out az improper. The attor-
ney further put questions based on the
presumption that the witness had tes-
titled that the Bible, the Book OF Nor
mon and the Doctrine and Covenants
and the Pearl OF Great Price were the
only authorities In the Church on doe
trine The witness replied he had not
made any such statement but had said
they were the only WRITTEN stand
ards, and had been so adopted by the
Church.
Questioned as to whether the oral
enunclaitlon by President Woodruff as
10 the sealing of children to parents
was authoritative. after the question
was put In proper form, the witness
answered yes, and stated further that
II was by other than written stand
ards he had been informed concerning
the sealing ceremonies
Attorney Jones strenuously objected
90 the latter part of this answer bur
the court ruled that IT should stand.
Another question by Attorney Jones
was as to the number Of forms or
'sealings" there are relating TO mar
riage.
There is one for time, one for time
and eternity and one for eternity only,
as | have testified to number or
times today was the reply OF the
witness.
The attorney wanted the witness to
state what their form was but was
met by the reply that they We're sacred
and not made public The attorney
asked,
"lt they are not published may they
not be varied In form by the persons
ofiiciatng?p
The witnes replied in the negative,
except that each form was suited to
the ceremony.
Don't you know that there are hun
dreds OF seallngs and marriages going
on In the Temple al the timer
The witness demurTcd TO the question
In that form and asked "Do you mean
that there is frequent performance OF
them?'
you know what mean" replied the
attorney.
Judge Hall Interrupted The attorney
and told him that he should frame his
questions so that they would not be for
the purpose Of embarrassing the Wit
ness, but such as he could answer INTEL
ligently.
81 want the witness 10 answer the
question directly, for ! believe he Is
peryarlcatlng, retorted the attorney.
THE court win take u upon itself TO
protect u witness on the stand" said
Judge Han, lust the same as It would
an attorney or other officer OF the court
The witness has not given you cause to
make such a statement concerning him,
TO the contrary he has shown a wiling
ness 10 answer your questions m a fair
and impartial manner when they are
put in such way that he can do So
You should frame your questions so
there can be no misunderstanding as to
your Intention
After framing the question different
" II was answered In the affirmative
by the witness
Don't you know that there are hum
dreds of people sealed for time and
eternity who are not married I'm any
other way?'
yes"
They live and cohablt together"
Yes"
suppose n man and woman are
sealed for time and eternity and CO..
habit together, do you understand UNI
der the law Of the Church that they
commit adultery"
mo sir, it would not be adultery"
was the reply,
Have you ever witnessed sealing
for eternity?'
yes"
win you state some instance. when,
where and who the parties werc?"
The witness declined to answer the
question and was upheld In his action
by the court.
During the cross examination the
witness was Intercepted BY Atty. Jones
as TO the problty OF Daniel II. Wells
and whether he could be likely to at
tempt to deceive. The answer was
that Daniel II, Wells was a man Of in
tegrity and probity and would not 40
so wilfully and Intentionally.
After the DISCRIMINATION was
concluded, Atty. Stewart wished to ash
some direct questions, bat as they
were objected to, they were postponed
until Monday morning at $3.50, to which
time the case was continued