Show BP BROMLEY NON EST THE COURT ORDERS HIS BONDS FORFEITED Thorn bur found guilty or adultery on friday afternoon ellen olsen continued her testimony in the thornburg adultery case she taid I 1 first had sexual relations in april 1887 st my home in pleasant grove heard him tell my parents he was a married man i to defense did not remember who was present when ho said he was married caroline olsen the mother of the previous witness was hext I 1 lived in pleasant grove in 1887 I 1 have known the defendant five years past be boarded at my house in march at 1887 he stayed about a month be never came back again my daughter ellen was confined on the of january last defendant asked me prior to april 1887 my consent to his marriage with ellen and I 1 told him I 1 could not give him an answer defendant told me subsequently he was married that his cifes name was annie that she lived in sweden and that he had three children by her tete told me this nearly two years apo peter bjorkland was next called I 1 left sweden eight years ago I 1 knew defendant there also his wife annie her name before she was married was olsen it is probably nine years ago since I 1 saw her last she had three children when he left and me was bora to him since then defendant told me this at west jordan it is six years since thornburg left sweden to defense cannot say whether defendants wife is living at the present time or not swen fried was next sworn heft sweden six years ago knew defendant then about three years knew thornburgh Thorn burgs wife there havo been at their bouse many times he had three children last saw his wife just previous to my leaving the witness here produced a letter he received from her last july which was offered in by the prosecution ellen olsen was recalled by the prosecution just after fter the child was born witness had a conversation with the defendant who showed her a letter from his wife dated november 8 1887 the letter was introduced in evidence it releases the defendant from the marriage contract and was introduced for the purpose of showing that the woman was alive at the time of the finding of the indictment john olsen testified that the defendant asked consent to marry his daughter in december cember Db witness said ho would not consent until the defendant obtained a divorce from his wife the counsel on both sides then rested their case and arguments were made to the jury by the prosecution and defense at the conclusion of which they received their instructions from the court at 4 the jury retired to consider their verdict after which THE BROMLEY ADULTERY CASE was called up when the defendant was called he failed to answer to his name the court waited some time during the interval the jury in the adultery case coming into court with a VERDICT OF GUILTY sentence was set for the of october till which time he was ordered back to the custody of the marshal after waiting some time the court instructed the marshal to declare the BONDS OF W M BROMLEY FORFEITED which was accordingly done on motion of jacob il an order was entered dismissing the case of the city of vs wilson at plaintiffs cost the case of the II 11 S against andrew petersen charged with unlawful cohabitation was then called for trial the government was represented by peters hilea and evans the counsel for defendant being sutherland maxoy A jury was paneled em and sworn and the case continued till saturday morning till which time court adjourned on saturday morning THE CASE for unlawful cohabitation was proceeded with ellen M petersen was the first witness called 1 live la richfield Eich field am married to defendant was married 36 years ago was legally divorced from him in this court two weeks ago I 1 now christina jorgensen she lived at defendants ranch this year and in 1887 defendant lived during that time on his farm christian has six children she was mar 1 rien to defendant fourteen years ago her youngest child is two years old next month her children are defendants he has not lived at my house for five years past he never pays any attention to me I 1 cannot say whether defendant is tha father of christinas or am good terms with christina dont think she has ever left defendant christinas children bear defendants name to defense my child is 23 years of age when defendant left my house he never told me his reasons and I 1 did not ask him to stay the distance between the farm and the ranch is a mile or mile and a half defan dant waa not at my house at any time during the past three years wo have quarreled and it generally occurred over hia leaving the church have not been on the warrn for over three years cannot state positively where christina lives or has lived only know what I 1 have been told christina jorgensen was nest called have six children the youngest is nearly two years old decad ant is the father of them all he has not lived with me since some time in 1886 ellen petersen was the first wife of defendant when I 1 married him fourteen years ago he furnished the bouso for me that I 1 alivs in on tho ranch to defense I 1 lived on the ranch in on the farm in 1886 and on the ranch again in 1887 defendant and myself separated in the spring of 1886 since that time we have never lived together my father moved me to alio ranch the reason defendant and I 1 separated was on account of the baw which we did not wish to violate this must have been in february or march of 1886 since then we have had no relations as husband and wife albert G thurber was nes sworn I 1 know ell on Pete raen and christina jorgensen the latter lived on the ranch in 1886 and on the farm in 1887 defendant was working on the farm the same year lived there J never saw him in the house with christina last year ant have seen them together there anthe farm during that timo to defense my ranch adjoins that of defendants I 1 lived on it during portions of and this summer my ranch lies between his ranch and his farm am certain lived on the farm last year defendant keeps his stock on the ranch and it might have been that he went to attend to them in the summer of 1886 when I 1 saw him and christina together the prosecution irose cution rested the defendant then stand and said dived hived with ellen petersen till about five years ago whence separated I 1 came to utah in 1861 and in 1873 I 1 married my plural wife 1 done so because I 1 was taught I 1 could not 60 exalted or saved without doing it about ten years started the united order down south where I 1 was living and it crowded me so hard that I 1 left mormonism on the outside I 1 was taught it would be salvation by taking another wife but instead of that I 1 found I 1 had made a little hell in my family when I 1 left mormonism my first wife told me she wanted a man who would save her and take her through the temple and told me to leave her and never visit her again so that I 1 found I 1 had two wives on my hands one to tight and the other to keep the first I 1 ever knew that there was a law against polygamy was when I 1 attended a meeting of the loyal league in birchfield Bich field then separated 1 mj r 1 february and lived by myself my first wife secured alegar divorce from me I 1 went to work and legally married my plural wife chastina cross examined have had five children by ellen and six by christina I 1 married christina in the endowment house in 1873 the endowment house is a sacred place where a person gets sealed for time and eternity did not understand the language much when I 1 went there I 1 understood I 1 was getting another wife though the court here ashod defendant what kind of a place the endowment house is said the endowment house is a place where they got washed and oiled I 1 did not live with christina directly after we were married used to slip around occasionally however and the is the birth of six children christina lived in ellens house about two or three but I 1 finally moved her to a house of her own we separated early in 1886 during that year I 1 occasionally casio nally met her in richfield when we attended meeting I 1 swear I 1 have never ate with her since we ed the first time to my best recollection that I 1 saw christinas baby was when it was six or seven months old in the spring of 1887 the defense rested their case and arguments were made by the counsel on both sides at 25 minutes past 11 the case was given the jury and they retired to consider their verdict ver diet MX peters stated that in the case of wm M bromley whose bond had been declared forfeited he would like the case continued without date and the witnesses discharged until they were wanted when they would be notified by subpoena DISMISSED the case of the people vs john burrison Burri sou was dismissed at plaintiffs cost afew A few minutes before noon the jury in the case of andrew petersen for unlawful cohabitation filed into court with a OF GUILTY as charge din the indictment monday the was set for sentence tha court then adjourned for recess on the reassembling of court saturday afternoon at 1 the appeal case of payson city vs john clayson for cruelty to 9 horse in beating it with a neck yole was called and a jury duly paneled em to try the case thurman sutherland appeared for the prosecution and J E booth esq for the defense SENTENCED FOB alma toung convicted of burglary in fairview in feloniously entering a store and was called up for sentence mr geo sutherland intercedes interceded inter ceded for the defendant with the court and asked for leniency the court could not see thata the case called for clemency and thereupon sentenced him to 1 SENTENCE POSTPONED the sentencing of gillis for larcena was postponed till october norderto to anto ohp det denneen neen CT j K ism t lwft fW ft opportunity of filing papers for a new trial SIX FOE ADULTERY sydney R carter was called up to receive sentence for adultery in answer to the court mr carter said he was 51 years of age had three wives youngest child ten years of age his wives had always been separated indictment had been found on his own statement before the grand jury and the government had been put to no expense in bringing the case to an issue was arrested sometime in the september was married to his last wife in 1857 the court said that the case did not warrant any extensive punishment and the penalty in tho case would be fixed at six months imprisonment in the penitentiary and the costs of the suit WANTED TIME TO THINK IT henry saunders was called up for sentence he was 75 years of age the court was sorry to see defendant back again be was under a suspended sentence and the grand jury had indicted him again and he had plead guilty defendant said he dead guilty but he really did not understand what he was doing at thu time the court said he felt conti amed to punish him same he did not want to send him to tha penitentiary ahe was so aged if it was not for the fact that he had been before the court on a similar charge and sentence had been suspended he would feel like letting him go the court finally said old man you go home and come back next saturday I 1 want to think some about this case you come again next saturday ANOTHER david edmundson appeared and plead guilty to burglary in having broken into a stord in emery county and taking some goods the defendant made a statement to the court his side of the story and asking for sentence the court stated under the statutes judgment could not be pronounce din a shorter period than six hours and the case would have to go over till monday when he would pronounce judgment PLEAD GUILTY john alma pace appeared and changed his plea from not guilty to guilty of the charge of adultery saturday october was fixed for sentence THE CASE alexander autrie charged with the crime ot murder plead not guilty mr 0 powers tho court to admit the defendant to bail on account of tho inability of the defense to priced with the case at pres nt he stated that to this the prosecution was willing but they harl not agreed among themselves as to aliu rim u bonds the prosecution stated they were willing to admit alexander autrie in boods of and the two other defendants fend ants impleader pleaded im in the case at 2000 each judge powers stated that the bonds were too high as the defendants were unable to secure that amount the court wanted time to consider the case and would let the matter lay over till he could do so NINETY DAYS AND FINE lewis larsen came up for sentence on a charge of unlawful cohabitation defendant stated to the court that he had two wives his youngest child the wives were separated living three blocks apart had been separated eight or nine months previous to that they had lived four miles apart I 1 was fifty years old last july the court sentenced him to ninety days imprisonment and fine PLEAD NOT GUILTY robert G brazier was arraigned on a charge of unlawful cohabitation and plead not guilty roub MONTHS AND hans P peterson appeared to answer an indictment charging him with unlawful cohabitation he plead guilty and asked for immediate sentence in answer to the court defendant said he had three wives they had lived in one house I 1 married the last wife in 1883 the youngest child will bo one year old the of next month the court you will have to quit this business mr petersen defendant yes the powers that be aay so and I 1 guess ill have to the court sentenced him to four months imprisonment and a fine of BONDS the name of charles frampton was called by the clerk but he failing to appear and answer the bonds were declared forfeited the bondsmen are james frampton orson holbrook and H 0 jackson discharged the name of daniel graves was called mr S E thurman stated that in the case of this defendant he was 83 years old and that ho was confined to his sickness and that his plural wife had died yesterday the case was discharged MOKE BONDS FORFEITED the names of joseph Br J H tidwell and soren sorens S jensen was then called ant none of them answering the bonds in their cases were declared forfeited by order of the court the grand jury filed into court and presented three indictments ander U S laws and the dismissing of the case of wm banks the case of payson city vs john clayson was then proceeded with |