The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-03-24
SAMPLE Of JUSTICE
FROM UTAH COUN 1Y
Story of How Willard Hutch
ings Was Convicted on a
Burglary Charge.
EVIDENCE is INSUFFICIENT
SAYS THE SUPREME COURT
Disgraced, Thrown Into Jail
and Wrongfully Convicted,
He Is Now Free.

That courts and juries sometimes make
errors so glaring and prcjudicial as to
make a virtual farce OF so-called justice
to say nothing Of the wrong perpetrated
upon unfortunate defendants. was never
moro clearly exemplined than I'm tho case
OF the State vs. Willard Hutchings, ap-
psaled from Utah county and passed upon
by the Supreme court Thursday. The
case was tried in the lower court by
Judge John z. Booth and prosecuted by
District Attorney D, d. Houtz
Opinion Recites Facts.
The facts as CLEANED from the opinion
of the Supreme court which Is written
by Chief Bartch and concurred In by Jus
tices McCarty and Straup, arc substan-
TALLY as follows: One Karen Green. who
lived at Pleasant Green. was the possessor
OF chicken house and barn. The
chicken house, which contained 10
chickens. was a thing OF beauty and JOY
forever. containing three rooms, with
stove In room, and was connected
with q barn In which there was large
quantity OF hay. On the night of Do
oember 10. 1904. the barn burned down
and out of the 120 chickens that had been
slumbering in the chicken house, or sup
posed to be slumbering there only -FOUR
were accounted for
Later, Willard Hutchings. who lived In
the LOCALITY was arrested and chaIseI
being the specific charge: Hutchings was
promptly thrown into jail. and remained
there until he was tried and convicted
in May. 1905.
Court Cannot See It
Just how "a court and jury could find
Hutchings guilty on the evidence adduced
at the trial is not apparent TO the Su-
preme court. or anybody else. There was
no direct proof to show that the defend
ant was about the premises on the night
in question. the opinion says, but one wit
ness. named Westphal. testified that he
Inc Nrfh In n
the night OF the fire. while the barn was
burning and he was Inclined to think
that one of the men was Hutehings. al
though he testified at the trial: We'll. |
can't say positive that IL was him
Westphal also testified that the men In
the buggy had something that looked
like bundle OF quilts
To this testimony was added that of
Sheriff Barnett, who sworc .nat Hutch
the chickens. and offered to plead guilty
to petty larceny. In order TO escape prose-
cution for burglary Hutchings denied
this statement. and said that such
proposition was made to him by the sher-
III but that he refused TO entertain It.
Alibi Clearly Proven.
Tho defense OF Hutchings was an alibi,
and his wife, mother-in-law and four
other creditable witnesses testified that
Hutchings was at the home OF his mother.
in-law, some distance from tho scene OF
the fire. from o'clock In the morning un-
I'll Y o'clock midnight on the night Of
Hutohings, after having been kept in jail
for months. was convicted, motion for
new trial was orerruled and he was
sentenced TO one year in the State prison
The only surprising feature Of the entire
proceeding is that the defendant was al
lowed to give bond. or, rather released
upon his own recognizancei upon appeal
tng his case to the Supreme court
Matters Not Minced.
Chief Justice Bartch does not mince
matters in his opinion. Referring to the
testimony concerning the two men in the
quilts the opinion says: Now, II that
testimony was intended to convey the idea
that chickens were concealed under tho
quilts. then, Ii would seem. common
knowledge of such things would suggest
the impossibility of concealng and carry
ing in a small buggy IKE the one dis
closed in the evidence 116 chickens. for
only four out of 12o were accounted
for, without, II living. attracting atten-
tion by their noise, or, II dead. leaving
stains OF blood upon the vehicle, and yet
no such noise appeared TO attract the at
tlon of the witness while the vehicle was
passing, and the Sheriff, who after the
FIRE. made an examination of the defend
ants buggy. testified: I examined the in
side of tho buggy and found II was black
and dirty Mr. Hutehings said he had
the buggy / did not find any feathers
and could not see any signs Of blood
Serious Doubt Raised
This testimony not only raises q doubt
In tho minds Of the court to the guilt
OF Hutchings. but also raises a doubt as
to the guilt Of any other person. for the
reason. among others. that none of the
chickens was traced to the possession OF
court suggests that the chickens might
have been frightened into the barn ad-
joining their boudoir and been consumed
by the hre which destroyed the premises
Opinion Is Charitable
AS to the testimony of the officer that
HlIfchlnRA cv1iilf nd oNa
10 plead guilty to petty larceny in order
TO escape a prosecution for burglary, the
court is charitable enough TO say: ''The
evidence respecting such an admission
or confession in such case should be re-
ceived and acted upon with caution. Mo
tiyes which may have induced It and the
manner In which II brought about
form subjects for consideration in deter
mining the admissibllity and weight of
the evidence of IT, Even IL 1t had been
admitted that the statement attributed
TO the defendant was made by him still
II would not have been entirely improba BILE
that the circumstances prompted it-that
the accused II In fact innocent, felt him
self SO embarrassed by his situation and
surroundings that rather than run the risk
would choose to plead guilty to petty lar
ceny and pay for the property In ques-
ton"
Judgment Is Reversed.
In conclusion the court says. What
ever may be the real facts in the case
the evidence in the record Is not such as
to warrant conviction. In our judg-
ment IL Is wholly insufficient TO sustain
verdict IT Is not even shown beyond
reasonable doubt that the crimo charged
was committed by any one"
In harmony with the Views expressed
the court reyerses the Judgment OF the
with directions to grant a new trial.
which Ia, In effect. declaration that
Hutchings is not guilty, ond exoncratine
him. -'''e