Show 5 i N7AIIL = IHREE COJJNTS 5 jr I S 9 jS r 0 P Arnold Acljudscad j Guilty 5 as Charged i ME J DICKSO S NEW IDEAS i How Be yTould Have a Bran Make Himself Secure TheJury S Out One Hour The evidence for the prosecution in the Arnold case being all in the evening even-ing previous the defense opened yester morning by the introduction of DEPUTY E A FR NKsHe said On the evening of the 17th of January saw Mr Arnold come from Mrs l nnie Arnolds and go to the Cont nental Wmlt there he conversed with several gentlemen tok a drink and rang up Dr Benedict at the telephone There was a light at Mrs Arnolds when I saw him go E in he went in the front door S DE H J RICHARDS swornI was called to treat a child of Mr Arnolds about the 30th of July 85 on First West Street I found itvary ill of summer complaint I prescribed for it and recommended re-commended that they keep the child out of doors as much as possible keep their house open and take it out riding I should call it a very sick child To MB DICKSON I went away two or three days after that and did not sea the child again JAMES JACK swornMr Arnold s business bus-iness office has been at my office for the past eight or ten years He comes between be-tween 7 and 8 oclock to count the money Thats his habit MES FANNIE DORA ARNoLD recalled re-called I had sickncsss in my family last January Dr Benedict called at my house with Mr Arnold Two of my children were quite sick with sore throats I think it was about the latter part of January S To MB DICKSON Dr Benedict is my f family physician he was there one night about 9 oclock and other times during the day I can give no idea of how long they were sick i they were both confined in the house CLERK MCMILLAN sworeI remember the case of Mr Arnolds pleading last April or May Q Did Mr Arnold make any statement state-ment to the court on that occasion regarding re-garding his intentions concerning his family relations i Objected to by Mr Dickson as being immaterial i THE JUDGE said he did not see the materiality ma-teriality of it MR RAWLINS argued that the declara ration made at that time had a material bearing on the subsequent conduct of the defendant It would explain his visits it would show why they were made and explain what might be construed con-strued as a continuation of unlawful cohabitation co-habitation It was all a part of the res jesta in this case When a man in this public way anuounces his intention to live with his lawful wife not to holdout hold-out any one else as his wife his declaration declara-tion ought to be material in his defense when he was accused of violating his promise TIIE JUDGE ruled that he might answer an-swer AI have nothing more than a general gen-eral recollection of the case but ater he plead guilty he was questioned by the court and promised to obey the law relating to unlawful cohabitation in the future S QVas anything said about living with his lawful wife AI have no recollection of that The date of this promise was admitted to be April 13th 1885 from copy of THE HERALD of that date in the posses sion of the defense t S MRs ALICIA ARNOLD the defendants first wife was sworn Since May 1st 1881 the defendant line lived at my house He has been absent from the city or Territory several times but when home he was always at jny house both eating and sleeping there He missed but one night that was a year ago last summer J Some wait oc urred Vchilc the officers were looking for Dr Benedict but as they did not find himMr Ixawlins said they would close MIL DICKSON then commenced his opening argument The defendants conduct has been such as to lead the neighbors to believe that his relations with his former plural wife had Lot terminated Mr Dinkson did not believe be-lieve the defendant > had kept his promise prom-ise to obey the law and abandon the second wife for 24 hours Deputy Franks had watched him visit the plural wife on two evenings in January The conduct of the defendant as shown by the evidence was such that the jury should convict him MB RAwLINS saidThe counsel for the defense hadsomerequests to make i they would like to have the foll Wing instructions given Cohabitation In the sense of the law meansto live or dwell together ushusband and wife and oefore you can find the defendant de-fendant guilty you must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant while living with his lawful wife Alicia ArnolH ftlso lived or dwelt withFanny Dora Linnell within ths period mentioned the indictment as his wife 5 ohabitation means having the same habitation not a sojourn a habit of visiting visit-ing tor a remaining fora time there must be something more than mere meretricious intercourse in-tercourse 3Ifthe jury find from the evidence that defendant before the 1st day of May 1855 withdrew himself from his second wife and thereafter ceased to hold her out or acknowledge her as such but lived and dwelt with his lawful wife refraining re-fraining from dwelling with such unlawful wife though he supported and visited her and her children and though she may nave been sometimes known as or called Mrs Arnold you should find the defendant not guilty 4If you find that the defendant merely visited the house of Fanny Dora Lin nell for the purpose of seeing or inquiring after the welfare her or his children or ascertaining their wants but not for the purpose of maritl association or holding her out or acknowledging her as his wife and that he did not hold her out or claim her as such you should find the defendant not guilty 5The word visit according to its ordinary ordin-ary and generaTsignification means to keep up the interchange of civilities to practice going to see others 6lf you shou d find that the defendant passed night at the house of Fanny Dom Linnell in caring for and nursing a sick child toe oirBU nstan < eought notjfobe considered con-sidered against him 71he jury should not convict the de t 1 t 1 I i LnthtuilJS you find beyond reasonable I reason-able doubttriat the defendant withirrthe imespccified in he indictment Jived with I or held out as his wife Fanny DOM nnell What Is meant by h Iding out in this sense in such language and conduct on the part of the defendant as would lead the world to believe tnat the parties were associating S and Ifviug together as husband and wife The Supreme Court Mr Rawli said bad fixed the meaning of thewdrd cohabitation co-habitation as dwelling together as husband hus-band and wife and this definition had a special bearing on this case The defendant de-fendant had d6solved his1 relations with the polygamous wife and bad only visited his cnil iren It would be un ia30imblo to say this constituted a crime The children were legitimate having been made so by the Edmunds law Bfcauso the polygamous wife had been caled Mrs Arnold was not a reason for conviction the defendant could not help that He had ceased to claim her as his wife A public avowal ot this act had been made In court thereby removing all possibilities of leading people to believe that they I still maintained the relation of husband I and wife MR RAWLINS then addressed his remarks to the jury He argued that the agreement between the defendant and hn polygamous wife and the formers form-ers promise made in court dissolved the polygamous relation existing between be-tween them Their children however were legitimate Tueir had grown up between the parents during their years of association feelings of affection for each other which could not be sundered in a moment and which must be considered con-sidered dealing with this questiou The defendant notwithstanding these circumstances and an adverse public feeling had promised to obey the law He had however continued to visit his children The District Attorney hd said he could not do this but the affections affec-tions of his heart said he must The prosecution asked what no man with the instincts of manhood could do turn a deaf ear to the appeals of his innocent in-nocent offspring It was said he might support them But the mere support of tender children was but a small part of a parents duty They needed his fostering care and there should be no censure attached to him for visiting them daily if he considered it necessary neces-sary The law was not so harsh as to1 forbid these visits though the District Attorney demanded it Jest the man was so debased that he would disregard hissolemn promise in the court and violate the law The most that could be said of the defendant was that he had visited his former polygamous wife aud her children He had ceased to corlabit with her and proclaimed the fact to the world But that proclamation proclama-tion did not require that he should become be-come a brute and cast her and her children chil-dren adrift She still looked to him for support and assistance in rearing their children He should surely have the privilege of smoothing the path of that life that was now scarcely worth the living since she had been deprived of the care of a husband Yet the District Attorney says the law will not permit Hi that it would not permit the woman to receive any attention whatever The man who under the evidence in this case came to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty must himself be of that corrupt nature that he would perform an act that no decent man would be guilty of If the law was as inhuman as the District Dis-trict Attorney said it was the man who conformed to it and disregarded the life of his offspring was unworthy he name of a man If the defendant was convicted con-victed under the evidence in this case it would be impossible for him to say that he would obey the law because he could not learn what that law required The Court had said he could visa and now the prosecution wanted him sent to the Penitentiary for doing so If he were convicted it would stop all progress pro-gress at bringing people within the law The example in this case would be pointed to as the effects of promising to observe the law and that example would be sufficient to deter others from givng a similar assurance The District Attorney hincself would not know how to live conform to his own definition of the law and would find himself in a fix if he should be converted and hap tised that is if they would not hold him under which I think they would The jury in this case would not be justified j jus-tified in finding any other verdict but that of not guilty jJ AT 2 rH the case was resumed and Mr F S I f 4 = Kiciards addressed the jury in behalf of the defendant Itseerus he said the first thing to do in the case is to determine the relations Mr Arnold and Fanny Linnell had sustained towards one another during the period named the indictment and if the jury found that the defendant and the lady named did not sustain the relation of husband and wife during that time then should the defendant be found not guilty There is no difficulty in finding the fact that Orson Arnold and the lady named were not during the time named in tho indictment husband and wife The r lationship was the same as if they had been divorced The actions of the defendant de-fendant were not unlawful In April 1885 Orson Arnold was charge with having two wives He came into court pleadguilty to the charge4 andpromised that in the future he would live apart from his second wife that he would obey the few against unlawful cohabitation cohabita-tion as it was construedby the courts The defendant could not obtain a divorce from Fannie because in the eyes of the law at least she was not his wife There was but one way out of the dilemma and the defendant took it But even if he could have obtained a divorce would it have been any more binding any more solemn than the promise that the defendant had made that he would henceforth live apart from Fannie There had been nothing illegal the conduct of 0 P Arnold and Fannie Linnell You must judge their conduct as you might judge the conduct of a couple that had been divorced This woman who had been his wife was his wife no longer True she was the mother of his children that he was bound in honor to protect and care forand as the father of such children he had a right to visit them and look after their welfare Will it be contended that the promises made the inducements held out to them were a delusion and a snare The assumption that the woman was his wife was a vain one She and the children depend upon him for support He goes there to attend at-tend to their wants The district attorney attor-ney says But ah what do the neig bhors say The neighbors say or should say J that he had a right to go there The separation was as complete com-plete as though there had been a legal divorce He walked home from the Theatre with her He sent her a theatre ticket Was there anything wrong about that Will it be contended that a man has no right to walk the streets with a female friend And then the visit to Ogden Was there anything wrong about that He zFi H c paid her transportation and may be her hotel bill but what of it Hewas residence Fannie IAnne1 seen at the ot Linnelt ot thf loth of Jnmiary at night He was there on a mission that any man would have gone on He was there when one of his infant children was ill and suffering suffer-ing He was seen there on the night of the lith and be subsequently was seen at the Continental Hotel and there Franks heard him call for doctor Bnedict i he dogged him back and saw him enter the house A deputy following him night after night for weeKS and the worst They cau say to you is this that his children were sick and that he had called there to see them If I had been prosecuting such a case nd hau a deputy dogging the footsieps of the defendant day and night for weeks aad may bofor months and then not been able to bring forth better evidence than what has been otl red I should have hesitated long before I should have brought out an indictment against him The idea of I holdingout promises to a man to obey the law taking his solemn word for it and then putting a spotter spot-ter on his track Go through the whole catalogue of the evidence from bginning to end nnd what is there in it Then the registration at Ogden What is there in it Did no one ever write a word and leave off one letter The testimony is so transparent that it wont hold together or if it does it will mean that when a man makes a promise prom-ise to obey the law he id i still not to be trusted that if he does anything to bring about a contact with the children or their mother he is guilty It cannot can-not be that the laws of the United States were ever intended to be so cruel as the construction placed upon them So far as they could they terminated their relationship of husband and wife on the 13h of April 1S35 The woman says the relationship had never been resumed ME DICKSOX closed for the prosecution prosecu-tion He opposed giving the instructions instruc-tions asked for by the aefense In addressing ad-dressing the jury he said the laws against polygamy and unlawful cohabitation co-habitation had never been respected in this Territory The law was not more severe than was necessary and I usual when crime was committed It might be true that innocent children I were compelled to suffer but that could not be prevented As for the I oman suffering the knew when she I married the defendant that it was a I feony and she must bear the suffering therefor They both committed the deed and must bear the cross however heavy it might seem It had been said her life was not worth living when she was deprived of a husband I but she only had herself to blame lor tbe pain she suffered Their chi I dren though innocent would have to suffer but that couLi not be helped and must be borne When a murderer I mur-derer was executed it might break the heart of his innocent wife and bring ignominy on innocent children but I that made no difference It might b I as suggested by Mr Eawlins that the District Attorney might be converted and shake hands with traitors trait-ors I he did he should be made to feel the weight of the law He did not 1 want the defendant convicted lor visit ing his sick children I was not necessary neces-sary for him to do as he did He might have sent a carriage to take his child out riding and not gone himself I he had onlv visited the house when the children child-ren were sick that might be excused When the defendant promised to obey I the law the polygamous wife was his wife and is so still I was said that the marriage being illegal could not be dissolved dis-solved by divorce But this defendant should have done all in his power to make it apparent upfonly to the court but to all that he meant to keep his word owhou he said he would keep the law and should have filed a bill with the court setting forth the facts and asking the court to make a decree setting forth that the marriage between him and his plural wifo was illegal and void Everyman Every-man who mae the promise should do this and put an end to the polygamous status I was their duty to do this and the statue could not be changed in any other way The defendant had not done this so both women were his wives still I this was not done there was no place at which the line of cohabitation co-habitation could be drawn I the woman was divorced he couid visit herat her-at any time and also visit her children He might even sleep under the same roof with her and commit no offense against the law or good morals But as this defendant hud not dissolved the relations with his polygamous wife by a decree of the court k < could not visit her as he had done without causing the conclusion Uiafc the relation of husband and wife was still maintained The jury might say that when the woman orber children were sick he might visit them but not at anv other time He could provide for them when in health but must abstain from visiting them while they are living with their motner He could send his lawful wife and have her bring the children to him where he could give what care ho choso but that was as far as he could be permitted togo to-go unless he had the unlawful marriage annulled The law was not aimed at meretricious intercourse but to breakup break-up the polygamous houselfold and put away the semblance of polygamy from this community Young people growing grow-ing up in Utah could not le rnt respect re-spect themonogamous home if the polygamous home was permitted to exist ex-ist by its side It was the evil example of polygamy that was sought to be removed re-moved and the status of tne polygamous polygam-ous family must be dissolved In tbe present case there was no evidence that there had been any change in the man nerof living fitter the defendant Pmide the desired promise J MB SHEEKS interrupted the prosecutor prosecu-tor to say that such evidence had been given I MK DW oNIdo notreniembertbHt it vas ao given I d6 nottnin lt was but ifs the jury will decide the matter mat-ter Then there was the visit to Ogden within a month of the solemn promise and the manner of registration Mr Richards had laid great stress upon the mistake in the register I wars a mistake mis-take that was hardly liable tooccur and even i it did so occur it was still a stronger case against the deiendaut In that one act alone was the evidence of I the holding out of this woman as his wife the flaunting in the face of society so-ciety semblance of the polygamous msrriage Why did be not i he went to that hotel for an honest purpose register the woman in her true name the only name she had any right to bear I do not believe he said that Orson P Arnold ever kept the solemn promise he made before this court twentyfour j hours > THE JUDGE Then delivered his charge to the jury I was BO rierent to any degree from the many that have prec ded it I the jury found that the defendant during iP J JKfi the periods named in Jfhe indictment fhe havingH legmilfe and also a polygamous polyg-amous wife astociated withthe latter under such circumstances as to indicate that he held her out as a wile they should convict He could visit his children bntshoulddQ it under circumstances cir-cumstances that would not indicate that he wss assocating with their mother as her husband It was not necessary f < 3r s divorce to be obtained from the second wife The fact that they had been married should be taken into consideration as also the promise of the defendant in court All of the facts should be considered in finding a verdict and coming to a conclusion as to whether he held out Fannie D Lintipll to the world as his wife and cohabited co-habited with her as such The jury retired in charge of Bailif Sprague at 340 and after being out a little over an hour returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts |