Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-02-15
JUDGE HALLS DECISION.

There appears 10 be much misunder'
standing Of the decision rendered by
Judge w. c. Hall. In the case OF Hill
on VS. Mccormick, the text Of which was
published IN the Deaeret News on Sat-
urday evening, and which has been
commented upon by our local contem-
poraries. The statement that Judge
Hall ruled that Sealing Is not a mar
rlage," Is Incorrect as may be readily
seen by reading his full opinion II IS
also an error to say that the District.
Judge "reverscs the ruling Of the su-
preme court"
The suit before the court In this IN
stance was n new case. II had to be
heard and decided on it's merits. Mrs
Hilton sued for property In possession
OF w. s, Mccormick, obtained by deed
from John II. Park. This was defended
and IN the course OF the trial new tes-
tlmony was adduced, bearing upon the
relations said to have existed between
Miss ArmItage afterwards Mrs. Hill
tom and DR.. Park. The chief question
was az to the nature Of the ceremony
performed by President Daniel II. Wells
at the supposed deathbed OF Miss Ar
mtage After hearing the evidence on
both sides and the arguments OF the
attorneys, the Judge took the matter
under advisement and on Saturday rem
dered his decision, based upon the evil
dence and the arguments IN this par
ticuar case,
The turning point in that decision Is
that the ceremony referred to was
sealing OF the bartles-Miss Armltage
and DR.. Park-for eternity only, and
therefore 1t was not marriage at COM
mon law, as II related only to the
world TO come. But the court
decided that the fact had been
established that In the Mormon
Church there were three kinds OF seal.
ings or marriages, namely: For time
only; for time and eternity; and for
eternity only. The first and second
were recognized as marriages at law
the third was not viewed as a legal
marriage for this world, and was there
fore beyond the purylow of the court,
being purely religious or spiritual
ceremony. And this scaling, the court
ruled, had been dissolved by mutual
consent as shown In the document
commonly called Church divorce.
Therefore, the decision Is that no mar
rlage OF which the law takes cognzance
was entered into by the parties named,
and consequently the plaintiff has no
rights TO the property In dispute by
reason Of the claim that she is the
widow Of DR. Park,
Now NJ to the decision Of the Supreme
Court In former case, Judge Hall
has not undertaken to set aside rul-
Ing Of the higher court lie Is too good
lawyer and jurlst to attempt TO do
that. lie has simply decided the pres
ont case according to his Judgment of
the bearings OF the evidence adduced
therein. OF course his rulings are open
TO the opinion Of the Supreme court,
II the present case Is carried there, and
no doubt the learned justices will view
It In the further light Of the new cyi-
dence presented and the rcasonlngs and
conclusions of the court below.
Judge Hall In approving the findings
Of the commission appointed to APP
praise the property left by Dr. Park
and apportion that which the former
decree allotted to Mrs. Hinton, did moth
Ing IN opposition to his ruling In this
case. lie simply carried out the or
der issued ana approved what the
commission had been required 90 per-
form. It was proper thing to do,
under the circumstances, and therefore
was not inconsistent with his opinion
in the latest suit under consideration.
We presume the end is not yet, IN the
litigation over the estate Of the late
esteemed educator and valued citizen,
Dr. John r. Park