Show SERET RET NEWS CITED IN COURT 4 t S Editorial on Sealing Relied Upon to Reopen Hilton Case CaseI I I THE rHE PAPER GETS SCORCHED 4 t JONES SAYS IT rr IS ATTORNEY UNWORTHY OF OP CREDENCE PETITION for tor rehearinG of ot the theA theA of Annie Annl F A Hilton A i ease case LL again Ros RO P Roylance respond jt It the right of appellant as ast t tw ItS widow Wow of ot the lato Into Dr Dra JIn a n R B park to have decreed to her hera a widow s 5 third th of ot the estate which a a j id to fo the University of Utah d Ir tn the supreme court yes 11 trIa i b y Waldemar Valdemar Van Cott and pir of or counsel for re With Mth the petition was wan filed N V Jones of counsel tor tori nant a reply remonstrating mst a rehearing Petitions for Cor re if rear rearing frequently filed flIed aring ar 5 of Or oases are ft but It is 13 I f l ai that the supreme court ent tn to a reopening of ot a case once by the unanimous opinion VV tM Jus Ju t as af occurred In this In P TV petition filed filM yesterday for Cor a re ye rel l rl g ls Is s i remarkable In that It itc citations of legal c by f f t ta support the contention st St th erred frred In Its judgment V u In tn lilU iU of f such suh authorities Is ap up to hP petition p as na the chief ex exan an ln e from the Deseret JaK JUI 1 after the case was de do tv d forth the he interpretation If of cf h b bl word wore sealed according to the ri JI of the Mormon church It was wasS S tins word ord that the supreme art A d liin turned the court hold ix g that It meant a common law la mar raze while the News edl edi nr UI tra d lares that the courts opinion u In jn error as measured by b the laws t r the However the court suit ted d retorts reports of ot discourses dl courses by bJ urh arI h authorities and the M 11 law of the church hurh to determine that I lt t sealing of ot Dr Park and Mrs Hilton nee was a valid mar nag jagA and that the church was wal not a legal separation Did the Court Err TV b petition for tor a rehearing of or the thee 3 2 t e in m the th supreme court sets up that J t tS ourt rendered an improper con const conni st ni ui tinn of oC the term sealed and b s that an opportunity be bc given to by b the taking of evi evl dt diP i as to the real meaning of oC seal in In the petition It was stated thit th sews News es editorial was Vas attached to show to the court ourt that It possibly ir ar iri i probably pr had made a mistake It aJ o set up that the court erred In boding plaintiff was Vas not estopped in ina a artIng f her marriage to Dr Park and in not lint holding that she was guilty c cr BV s B r 1 aj ay a of oC opposing the petition for fora a r hearing ng of the celebrated case Jones replied in a document I eang ng that no sufficient cause had hadJ bra J shon hWn for granting a rehearing r rv TJI did die it appear appeal that any error had hadVin Vin b ti by the court In find I 1 in r favor avor The court did rot tot n nt 1111 t to decide any an point in the th i and if the reply stated a rehearing reheating be granted It would afford no relief The reply added that although the Issue was raised affirmatively by de defendants defendants defendants answer In the trial court the respondents attorneys failed to put a single ingie official of the Mormon church on the witness stand to prove that a sealing ceremony was not a marriage From this it was submitted in the reply that it would be wrong in inlaw Inlaw inlaw law and in principle to send end the case back for tr retried retrial as a the best evidence had already been hearty beard and nothing new could be he adduced i Reply Scorches arches S the News Referring to the citation of the Des Deseret I oret eret News New editorial as a authority to govern the th court ourt In Its Us decision At Attorney torney torne Jones Jone reply states tates I It Sit Is i Incomprehensible that learned counsel Coun el such as petitioners should ask ak al k this court ourt to reopen the case without the citation of one legal au authority authority authority and upon the production of a newspaper r editorial attached to their petition as an exhibit The proposition is scarcely worthy of discussion Wedo Wedo We Wedo do not think the court will regard It as complimentary and we desire to tosa say sa In n alluding to It that we mean no disrespect to the court but simply point out that the editorial is un unworthy unworthy unworthy worthy of ot belief It Is in journalism what pettifog pettifogging pettifogging ging gins is in court that is IH an attempt to mislead the court As evidence o othis of this note one statement made by the editorial The president of the church never issues such divorces church di divorces divorces divorces unless first granted by b a com competent competent court For contradiction see case use of 19 Utah Mrs Wickel was granted church divorce I long before heto she u for It in court There are other statements lr II the same editorial P ti l equally untrue and sus susceptible susceptible susceptible oC of contradiction but as the ar article tide is In n no sense sens authority we refrain from further discussion of it If how however however however ever the petitioners counsel believe that the News editorials are com corn competent authority auth they the might have cited some others that were written special specially ly for tor this case casc while it was pending In the trial court in which it garbled both questions of church law and of fact Court Cannot Reverse I In Jn conclusion the reply points out that there was wag no o error in the opinion of ot the court and the court could not with due regard for the law and the facts decree the law to be other than thanas as expressed in the opinion The re respondent respondent respondent had her day in court the re reply reply reply ply states and refused to introduce the evidence which is 18 now sought to be offered but the respondent is barred by her own ow laches Finally the reply submits that the appellate court courts opinion is a correct exposition exp of ot the lq h v and of the judicial termination of the points 1 involved |