A LADY imprisoned the ogden standard of jan 12 has the following during the afternoon session of the first District Court yesterday the grandeury gran grand jury djury filed into court having in charge mrs E C hendrickson hendrichson of logan assistant U SAt attorney torney hiles stated to the court that she refused to answer the question did your husband marry any other woman an on the same day referring to the date of witness marriage on the ground that she was the legal wife mr kimball stated that inasmuch as she claimed to be the legal wife and had already sworn that her husband had no wife living at the time he married her she was the legal wife and under the ruling in the miles case she was a privileged witness when in a case against her husband and was not compelled to testify the court did not think it came under the rulings in the miles case and ruled the question to be proper after cons consulting lilting with her attorney mrs hendrickson retired to the grand jury room but soon returned again in charge of the jury as she bad again refused to answer the question the court asked mr kimball if her answer was according to his instructions mr kimball stated that if she was the legal wife she had a right to refuse the grand jury could not examine amine her on her vow voir dire that was only within the jurisdiction of the court the court must first decide the question of privilege if she was the legal wife she could not be compelled to answer if not then the question was proper until this point was decided the court could not punish her for contempt she bhe had appealed to the court from the grand jury the court could not say that they should determine her claim mr hiles stated that the only point raised was is the question proper mr kimball replied it must first be determined whether she is the legal wife or not if she was a witness in a trial against her husband and she claimed her privilege as the legal wife the petit jury would be sent out while she was wasa sworn worn an her vow voir dire that they might not be influenced by such testimony as might be produced what is the difference between alf fifteen men sitting here pointing to the grand jury and twelve men there pointing to the petit jury box they should be sent out while she is being examined by the court handshe and she should not be punished for contempt until her claim is decided unfavorably it is out of the power of the court to border order her committed until th enand the grand jury cannot ask it here mr hilea arose and in a very impatient manner said that if every contumacious witness was allowed to set up his or her claim in this way and appeal to the court the whole time of the court would be taken up in determining such claims if this is a proper question and the court has so ruled she should answer she has refused and should be committed for contempt there is no use of trifling with these people but to see that the judgment is carried out in J order for the jury to determine her blaim she must answer the question if answered in the affirmative the next question would be which of the ceremonies was prior to the other mr kimball reiterated what he had previously stated and said mid that the argument used by mr hiles namely the consumption of the courts time was simply an unfortunate point in law it could not be changed now the law confers the privilege and the witness claims the right of that privilege she his has testified that her husband had no wife living at the time of her marriage with him she is therefore his legal wife and does not appear in contempt the court stated that that was only her conclusion she could not know whether her husband had another wife the only instruction asked by the jury was Is the question proper erv the court is only to pass upon the question of competency it is not to determine issues arising in the enry room they simply ask her 4 the question in order to determine if she is a privileged witness she refuses to testify and I 1 dant think she can do it mr kimball asked that question and witness claims be reduced to writing so that she could take exceptions this was done and mrs hendrickson dr was committed to the penitentiary until such ume time as she expressed a willingness to answer she was waa given in charge of her 1 I brother george C parkinson until this morning when she will leave for salt lake city notice has been filed of an appeal A to the supreme court and if Is IB thought an attempt will be made to have her released on habeas corpus next tuesday or wednesday