Show THE THIRD DISTRICT A Verdict of Not Guilty in the Darke Case BROWN ESCAPES WITH A FINE The Bredemojror Adultery Case Now onOther Business Before the Court When the Third District Court adjourned ad-journed on Wednesday evening the case of the United States vs Lucy Darke Muir was in progress and it was resumed yesterday morning The prosecution offered in evidence the testimony ot the lady as given at the time her husband was tried on the charge of unlawful cohabitation and which they claimed were such admissions admis-sions as would tend to make out the case charged Mr Young of the defense objected The tstimony such as it was was not voluntary admissions on tbe part of the defendant but was forced from her I ill obedience to the commands of the Court and she did so only because she was compelled to even though she had made no formal objection in court She waa not informed tOll it was her privilege privi-lege to refuse on any grouurt and it would be a gross injustice and contrary con-trary to the spirit of the law to permit tbe prosecution to proceed ME PETERS held the view that inasmuch as she had not bean compelled j by the Wart to testify in the case against h > r husband whatever statements site made at that time could be very properly used agaiat her at toe present time There was no pretense mat she had claimed the prote tion of the Court at that tim and therefore it could not avail her in the present instance in-stance Mn YOUNG did not think such reasoning was correct Such a proceeding proceed-ing would be a satire upon justice THE J ffBGE ruled that the statements made by the lady us a witness against her husband weie not given under caution that she was not required to testify to matters that might be used against her subsequently The general rule is that a witness who voluntarily makes statements criminating himself may be confronted by the same at his trial If the witness at the time the statements were made is under the belief be-lief that it was his duty to answer it cannot be said the statements are voluntary There is no difference whether or not the witness is under indictment in-dictment except that when there is no charge the witness would be less on his guard In this caso the witness is a woman aid reasonable persons cannot ignore the fact that women are not as well acquainted with the law 113 men She was not advised of her privilege of refusing to testify There was a doubt in the case and the Court in its judicial capacity could not take advantage of a woman In this case she was required to attend and be sworn as a witness and to testify Under the circum stancap it being i apparent that she was < J not informed ot her rights it would be improper to use her testimony given in tbe former case against her on the present occasion The objection is sustained WILLIAM S MUIR was then called He lived in Bountiful Mr Young here asked that the witness wit-ness b 1 s instructed that Lie might decline de-cline to testify on certain grounds ME PETERS did not think the witness needed any instructions The Court however did not see eye to eye with the prosecution and gave the instructions asked for by the defense de-fense ME Mum in answer to the prosecutors prose-cutors questions continued went to ELnd in 1887 I dont know v hether I am married or nM MR PETER When did your first marriage take place Air MUIRI dout want to answer your questions beca Jse I think you want to criminate me again You want to get me bnck into the Pen again and Ive just had six months there ilK PETERS I want an answer Ms Muia I wont answer Mr PETERS You are willing to swear that in your judgment your testimony might tend to criminate you MR MumI am MR PETKRS insisted on the questions but the Court checked him by saying that advantage might be taken of the witness statements in further proceedings pro-ceedings against him ME PETERS insisted and the Court informed him that the witness had aright a-right to decline The witness was interrogated further and declined to answer saying You have threatened to prosecute me if yon could You have threatened right herein here-in this room to criminate me You want to get me in a maze and catch me I am lawyer I refuse on that grourd THE JUDUB You refuse to answer on the ground that it would criminate you Mi MTJIK Yes MR PuTKiia When were you first married I THE JODCIE He hrs stated that his refusal to answer is on the ground that his statements might tend to criminate himself Mn PETERS lie has been acquitted of the uhsrge THE JUDGE That does not cover all time More questions form a basis for a other prosecution MB PETERS to witnessYou make your answer under oath ME MUIB Yes sir MR PETERS We rest DEPOT CLERK ZAHE was then sworn for the defense and identified the record of the trial and acquittal of William S Muir on the charge fo adultery i THE JUDGE then brought the proceedings proceed-ings to an abrupt end by instructing tbe jury to return a verdict of not guilty which they did without leaving the box ESCAPED WITH A FIlE I William Brown an aged resident of Bountiful was called for trial in the Third District Court yesterday morning morn-ing he having been indicted for the crime of unlawful cohabitation Reentered Re-entered a plea of guilty and before sentence was pronounced his attorney I Mr Young called the attention of the court to the fact that the defendant was d Jt1 vllnT thathewas afflicted witbta disease such as unfitted him to go to the Penitentiary and suggested I sug-gested tnat instead of the usual punishment punish-ment in such cases a fine only be imposed im-posed In answer to the questions of the Judge it was discovered that the defendant de-fendant was in pretty fair circumstances circum-stances and thus able to pay whatever fine might be imposed THE JUDGE Well in view of the circumstances cir-cumstances of the case in consideration of the fact that you have pleaded guilty and that yon are pretty well along In years I am disposed to omit the imprisonment im-prisonment in your case and sentence you to pay a tine of 300 and costs of prosecution THE BASHES CASE At the conclusion of the above case that of the United States vs John R Barnes of Xaysville was called and Judge Powers announced himself as appearing for the defense Attorney Peters represented the government The names of Deputies Cannon Franks and Pratt were called and each responded re-sponded Mr Peters thought that other witnesses should be in attendance attend-ance as he understood that they bad oeen put under bonds to appear This tbe defense denied claiming that no witnesses in the casa save those mentioned had ever been sub pccnaed to say nothing of being put under bonds The prosecution begged to differ and after a slight squabble it was discovered that the defense de-fense hud the correot idea Mr Peters then asked that the case go over for abort a-bort time while the witnesses could be subpoenaed Mr Powers objected The defendant had been ready for trial for the past three days and if the prosecution prosecu-tion was unable to proceed the case should be dismissed Judge Zane however held that the case might go over bra short time in order that the prosecution might have an opportunity co subpoena the necessary witnesses and that it be taken up at the conclusion of the Bredemeyer case This was agreed I upon and the case of THE UNITED STATES VS WILLIAM BREDE MEYER was called All the witnesses save Hose Thackrah were in attendance she failing to respond when her name was called and an attachment was ordered issued for her Pending her arrival the court adjourned until 130 Dickson and Peters appeared for the prosecution and Varian defended Bredemeyer as before stated looks but httlu worse for his short sojourn in the Black Hole of Salt Lake County and aid not appear at all agitated as to the outcome After nineteen men had been examined ex-amined the following twelve were accepted ac-cepted as a jury to try the case W B Mulloy H B Ileedall Wil iarn Jamison Jam-ison William Vanderhoof W T Hudson Hud-son Ed Pickering W C Staines William Lynch B B Shepherd S 0 Pancake KL Tripp Murray Shepherd Mr Peters asked that in view of the fact that the detai i of the case were scarcely fit for the public the witnesses wit-nesses be requested to withdraw which was done tne triaL proceeding with closed doors rue evidence for the prosecution was all in aud the defense livi put Brede uieyer on the stand when tno court adjourned ad-journed last evening The evidence Deduced is scarcely fit for publication tu tin columns of a daily paper and is therefore suppressed The case will doubtless go to the jury to day OTHER BUSINESS The witnesses for the defense in the grand larceny case against C B Gil leite were ordered subpoenaed at thee the-e pecse of the Territory the defendant having no means to secure their attendance at-tendance In the case of John T Sweeney indicted in-dicted for murder in the first degree in connection with Neal Mulloy the murderer mur-derer of GJ Hughes tto court appointed ap-pointed 0 W Powers as counsel for the defense |