Show j J a CHURCH COURTS I II I 1 J J ARE DENOUNCED i I Improper per Influences Are Held Heldt 1 T t ir to Have Been Used in I t Birdsall Case CaseI f 1 WOMAN GETS HER LAND LANDi I i J JUDGMENT IN NOTED CASE IS ISI J h REVERSED I 1 j Church courts and Interference J enco ence in the private e affairs of citizens by 4 bishops elders ciders and other Mormon church I l j members wee were roundly ro denounced In an opinion handed down by the supreme 1 p court of Utah yesterday afternoon The 4 case is Js one which has attracted attract much at attention throughout the state I 1 The action resulting In yesterdays I I opinion was begun In the supreme court c i by Isaac Isaae Birdsall guardian gu of at Cora Bird r salt Ball an Insane woman who prior to her herI herI j I confinement to the state mental hospital I at Provo resided at Joseph City Sevier SeYler 1 t I county count and grows growe out ut of the transfer I of a piece of land to James E and Hulda 1 1 J Leavitt who were afterward made de defendants d dec c in the suit in the district court of f BevIer Sevier county when Judge Chidester upheld the decision of the church courts and declared the transfer perfectly legal Gets Her Land Back BackI I This judgment Is now reversed and the lower court is ordered to enter a decree 1 r declaring the deed whereby the land was transferred void old and to reinstate the tho i plaintiff in all her rights to the property 7 she albe to recover alt alf costs of the action According to the opinion of or the su supreme J C preme court with regard to the ruling of oft I t The th lower court insanity and undue in influence Influence fluence and the allegation that the de defendant defendant defendant paid and other valuable con coni i for fr the title constituted about i M the entire case The defense was practically 1 3 a denial of oC these thre allegations 1 June 11 ii itOl Corn Core transferred a J piece of property to James E B Leavitt i t If by y warranty deed August 3 I 1905 1903 she was wasi i 4 I adjudged insane and committed to the J tate plate mental menial hospital at Provo In the evidence at the trial that followed was the testimony of ot o n a physician to the ef of effect lI I feet f t that Miss BIrdsall was mentally in incompetent Ini inI i I competent Her relatives testified to toJ toi J i practically tie the same effect The wit witnesses l nesses esser for tile defense testified that she Bhe shedid ho 1 did not make the deed of her own free fret freewill freewill 1 will The case had gone through all of 6 i the me so alloo courts before the theof of j signing of the tho document and the tM decision i j In every vor Instance was against her herS heri i Signed S to Regain Standing The record shows that she sho was excommunicated when she he declined to comply with the ruling of the church authorities I and that she signed the tho deed eventually i I UK ngn a moans II lans of regaining r her standing In l tho the church To bring this about bishops I 1 and elders were called culled In to minister to toJ J 7 her ber The testimony of oC Simon Christen sen eon a witness Is quoted In effect as fol follows follows I lows Iowa I 1 was waa there when the deed was wasI I 1 I signed When en we sot got ot there she he seemed I troubled arid and distressed and expressed herself about like Uke this Why was I so soi i 4 0 S t foolish as rt to refuse to comply c with that I r n We told her that If sho she wished I to comply with that decision now she f I l had the privilege and could regain her herp herf p I fellowship f In tho the church Somo Some one ono said b It If think more snore of ot that land than you OU OUt t 4 c do of your fellowship In the church that f c 1 will make mako a difference To which she sheI I replied emphatically I 1 care nothing for forthe forthe forthe f the land so that I 1 zany may ma get to feel teel as I II 4 I L dId before 1 The record teems with this character t I of evidence ld nce from tho the defendants wit witnesses I t nesses Her friends relatives and spirit spiritual i I ual al advisers without exception solicited 0 I I advised and some even Importuned her to sign the deed cleed The Tho supreme court holds I j that this was far from that free and vol voluntary vo vor volI I r F act net the tha law requires in tho the exe execution i I cution of DC Instruments Her condition is III IsI I I held to In have been such that she neither i j t t t saw sa nor comprehended matters in their true tru light and attributed her suffering L t I to tho the fact that th t she had disobeyed the thee thet e t command of her spiritual advisers and for Toe fori i this had been The evi 11 evidence dence shows that she had no part in IR fix fixIng fixing I Ing the consideration either cither financial or ori orI I i j otherwise forming the basis of ot the trans transaction transaction 1 t action The rho day following the signing f she ehe asked about the paper she sh had signed J C evinced a desire to 10 see It Upon pon get getting getling ting ling It into her hands she declared she 4 r I would never sign it Irrespective of the j k fact tact that he had already done so I In conclusion the opinion says ears that set settlements settlements g of o 0 existing difficulties outside t a of ot legal egal courts are encouraged by the courts but that the law courts are just justus justI t I us ns willing to Interfere on behalf or against i t V r anything approaching coercion on the part of church courts or church officials J I as fl against any other ther 0 class of persons or t officials I The opinion was written by Justice i e Frick Prick Chief Justice McCarty and Justice I I concur |