Show PLURAL WIVES conflict of opinion amon amongst ast the supreme court judges polygamous fa us wives can testify against their husbands in abo Su Surri pronto imo court of utah territory rii pr frail a I 1 I 1 october ar tom term I 1 I 1 irs J lanan wool Ade ailer raar t f juno june ma ion J 1874 delaver xi the lie opinion of lite court the plaintiff phin tiff io tile ilia trial below III in ilia cirit district court in ia order to maintain at the he iono upon his hh part otfred ai a mit one 51 31 irga ret ann herbal and stated lit at tho time abbo kho is ia the plural difo or mccoad wile main ol of tho the ill the first wile mile bring being now living and residing siding rt with the plaintiff v a iiii rm lifo Dolen dant thereupon objected to paid arly being worn ax as witness ant anil tho the objection being by the court su and tho the person as a lim oso case hiu bits been to this court apon that point llie berrit rial excludes the mile bilo com oa testifying for or agai natt her husband liuba nj except when tho the action is between them KIve tho the sion bion applies 0 the lawful wile wife and not to lo all illegal ono oco but bat is I 1 this ins court to decide upon the leg legality allty or illegal illegality iry of the marriage between the alio plaintiff anti and ler ber who ii bea la by no meins tile tho pirty omi br ber As fitness ito asi cartia that i ii his wife and in ano 0 delen ilent aa sects thereto so far na as ilia case goes and aks tier her exclusion anler the iho excluding a wite wile but it is ia said chilt ho be is M tho the plurel wife or second ww efto pliant iff and that the lirt cifu is t idill 1111 living with tho the as bifi the whole adais nin should ilo ull bo be taken together yet jet lla lH lados do dos s not nit cli elango tingo tho the cam ai 3 sho she is is the plural wife or vec cec and onil wilet nilo aua that the first wife living with too ane plaintiff bi his hia wife it does docs tut lot ollow follow that the court is u going to lo decide d cido that the firt fim marriage is is il a land tho the second one coo void es ca specially illy ally when no DO such cites is ia pre donled such n case woul i have pre 1 CIAO ci itol I 1 itself to i tho he court below hail had chi I 1 a lo 10 f 1 fr 8 court connol oll then aad there tharo di all crit m e il t lafit said bomin was tho the plaintiffs caifa but only a mistress yc yet lull ibis ho be did not 10 lo do but stood by bi lin s statement att ment that she was I 1 h wife tho the court go into tho the question ua sion heeber this thia woman ws was a wile wife or not when no one ench a ques tion both bolh parties agree upon the point that sho ho is a wife but it is a asecion se I wife or plural wife into nod tile other faill living with plaintiff BI as his bis wife the ii bi that tile first wits wita is ia tile alie legal wife and ilia second is an illegal ato ife a more concubine con tubino yet tos tho the first may bo be void I 1 BI not being between betwee D parties competent to contract or it may have be n dissolved ji by decree of court and ilia pinies parties gone eone to live together gain again tho court must rotO Kuia the jet fact that very lit little t le respect is ia paid to tile marriage nago tie in ia toil territory arld and whore where in a civil cio tho the bartic i acme ag cc in the court below that thia wit ness nes offered is a wife wi no matter whether the first wife bo be ining or not or tho the person peon bo be the plural or ccone wife or not ilia court will con cIndo that she lie lt is si a far is as tile he quoi cluck tion of her ad admission as awit amit ner goes the ibe legal wife of the party as a wito cis la ibo case before us in the court below the woman is is as 8 wita mil now in in this court after thea party be hai acted upon the anti ami after the court blow below not ca upon tin former admi galon the plaintiff comes in ia and asks to take a new ground different from thill that occupied beliar and disclaim the woman us as at ifa anti de cliare I 1 tor er to be boudens his inis only suck stich a fiarand fatt fia tand and booso practice such juin lory not bo be all allce Cd atwould it would be unjust hotbo to the coutt court below for tho the party to take liaa ono pooi tiou i il ii i that court and then another in this court and thus succeed in ch ginging the judgment lit ile must at blind oi or fill fall by ilia his own words at tho the time of offe offering the mit witness ness it if the ilia pirly party claims the woman as 03 wire below to must reap tho the consequences it was sufficient tor for the court ti t i loon that ho he claimed tier her its as lis his wite wife an and d as to whether the elie really was liis his wife or not is not the ibue the defendant ari ang no cin question estion thereon thore cn alio judgment of tho the court wow below is ii affirmed I 1 concur in tile iho above P 11 associate justice or UTAH cian LEMP corar ld mbel ard friel vs lyman S 8 wool wood Ariminta to 1 I lamb I 1 sell docu jul i mc kaii ch J deliverer delevere del de iverel livere I 1 the toli foli iv ing dissenting opinion opi the plain tin sued tile the defendant in the birtt district court on a prom i nory cry noto dote maile by Lamb lambson scan during in life time the defendant pleaded ayme D it by a ilia his do cle eise cease jo lie braf before this the colitt without a jury thre thore th re lendi nir to 0 such pay paytent went the TI ain iff then calla I 1 As ai a witness con rill tanu for tho the pur par 1 11 1 ol 01 I that thao had boen beer no DO such sual 1 ay and further to establish sod and statements to the same end the counsel for the plaintiff whoa when the wiynema wit nessi nema bated as the lilt bill of scotti I 1 that the is tin the plural alar 1 wife or second IWO info of the tile first wire wife being now living wid and arts ding with tile lie pai aliff tiff as aa his hia difo the die do de counsel oba ched t ti tho the wit oc oca noa a being boru the court unstained tho the ojo je clion and tho the witness from the stand end from b born tho the plaintiffs plaint iffa counsil conns 1 delo july ally excepted to the ruling judg moot was rOMAC rendered TOd tor for the ill fr the costs tho the plaintiff appeals 6 A bub tui shall not bo be a for or against hi lis wire nor a awitin lor for ur or ag nuitt t tier her tor nor can after purilar g the marriage or affair wards bo cabout tho the consone ot of tile the other examined at ai to any com commini muni fotiou cadiou enado by ono to lo the other jur dur auk lax marr marricco marr iAco Laso vat brit thil nut not apply to gin an acton act on or proceeding ly IY ono thin other utah practice Iri clico act MM di lil 1 1 the ll clarbel arbel cattle the Ib diou ct ci this statute tta tute I 1 bud aul was I 1 th e the properly elected eject d as a a wito oss cias the respondent s vou I 1 v 0 1 idelt A I 1 ats As a case or of on ilia ibo fro freal hold 1011 tho the tilT io that ca a 0 showed ho irei that about mirteon jears L lanan tile trial abo lang lanzot of between the defendant and the w wan Abig abigil sil wore more published bubli aed that them they lad had cohabited ed vt niah ith t lach ollie ar tor for many beir that tho the avid abigail had had two children of whom the doen dant was the reputed father aid ad that tho the defendant hid that he h had been lawfully ular tied t it her er nd ind lad bibi ted a certificate ato of cf the tact fact in buduo eluo lorin form I 1 ic 16 wi was lidid that hit the t aoud chii il not avoul in that cau cao ca u o by claiming clu inning the vanilla abigail WM was lia his dime tal in I 1 that hm marriage enli wilh her was w therefore void oid tile the acsa did not turn on tile tho adain admin aion or reject on ot of a bud even it the 0 marriage we boio 0 voidable it could not dot bo be tolerated lima ho should escape limity by himself declaring it to be void dead that too iu in a collat colW crul eral proceeding ce oc it is unnecessary to iii quire how bow tile court would have decided bad abo carnago acon on old jot us u pappelau elau that john doe sued It richord ichird lutc noil and on oil tile the trial calls mary loo as a P n value a at t the I 1 taine timo time saying tho is in toy roy aire I 1 on bal I 1 let us ui that tho the defendant objects it 1 9 hit her being or hii pi log io iu in the case nor no it in am dear clear that tant the court must talo I 1 lie he ilai nir statement 0 a to ko arne tho objection admits it to lie le true as a a demurrer to it complaint admits lucli auch complaint to lie bo true anil and tho the chort can no moro mar e go outside outride of the ito statement s nil nd p presume resume other or diff rent fact fack thian linn it adula KO go outside or of a complaint and ana facts aich not stated it follows follow that mary I pio io o would have to 0 in bi regarded as aa ill chii crifo the lawful mile of fit the plair t 11 nod and therefore it would lie 10 1 0 tho the duty doty oi of tho court to reject her bar as m a wit nem when I 1 in tho the caso case at ai bar tho the s coun counce el called tho the woman herbel iw as a wil hoseid eho bho is Is tho ilia plural wito wife or wits wife ot of tho the plaintiff the first wito wife being now living and reihn ff A with till the us all his wife the de fea dauts coun tel kel objected to het her sworn the ile statement ol of ilia ho s counsel must be taken its ai true nothing il can bi be adaer to it or take from it it 1 either eith caner by or pro Bump lion what duos dues that lite ment mean t take tho words the firt wife b being cida dow living and ro siding with mith tho the plaintiff or nii his wito wife those words mean locan inthey if they moan mean tiny thing that tile the woman of 0 wit whom 0 they were spoken wan the lawful R wito anito of of the plaintiff the worl plural conss of two or more designating two or more akyi y number except one sea web starts baars die courts bro are boand to tale neace of many anoy facts cm milich are an neither sworn to by atno seq nor recorded in ill books chii cilia t knows rua and is ii bound to taha notice that tho the practice yantice far poleg polygamy am y is ia taught in tyl utah tab anil and that in all public and in in private private a poly polygamous gainous oui woman is 13 billel called a plural enral cdo bill that a plural difo tho cirit vire tho ilia statement made by tile alio plate tilts conns 1 was VAS in ia cc nud and legal effect that tho the plaintiffs grat first and then blise and ana cohabiting with wilh tile tho plaint ff anti anil that tile tho woman It herbal erbal sri bained polygamous to tho ilia I 1 ohn find and therefore thor eforo was mas not in lw law his is wife vile ilia theory w wiit that therea ore bile wi was i a competent gitnes wit nes no time tima will aill bo be in proving abat it a amoni agi is ia absolutely void TO K on an indict indictment talent for a second marriage riago during the continuance of bi a former than gli the lh woman fire married mart acl ly lim him cannot bo be it a witness wit 9 yeti yet at afier ter proof of tho ilia firsa marriage the momen ho he mar nod may bo be a witness not being legally the wife of tile the prisoner ncr A flear such proof she won would 1 do bo corn coni pots tit to give evidence tor for a ai well A aa abtin t tle this prisoner on ev rv vol IL p ag W mars marg in a prozo ution for polygamy ib the fart husband or wife cannot b ba admit admitted tod to p prove ove tha ilia former mir mar biago against the prisoner p ia M marc the husband cannot bo be a wi tracEs against the afo nor the iho cifa aamott the husband hns band to prove the tha first crt marriage on n an n tor for it second marriage but in such buch caso case the secona wito wife or may be a wita wi toos lops aha second marriage being void oom com Chi 19 ed p 41 1 note doto iq 46 I 1 his bi rule of protection is ia extended 0 only illy tj to lawful or to jinich as asro are innocent in tho the eye of tho law if the is ia clearly ot at tin nu immoral charar character as 03 for exam the ca 0 of a kept parties are comp tent to toi tin ani aich aach other on tho the other liand hand upon a trial for or polygamy the iho firt marriage icing proved and not dot tho woman with the iho S win was hod had is a competent witness I 1 for lite ilia second marr marriage a go 14 void 1 I ci KT ell see sec tho rulo that tho the bushland bus bisband iland and wire shall oot not bo be com coin polled to testify against each other relates related oaly to lawful marriages marria gei or at least to such as are arc io innocent in the eye bf tho the law A 1 I kept altre s i u i certainly not and she die is a competent witness against ilia man t ty whom than i kept kelt a p statute the utah statute iq ii substantially nn an enactment ot of the rule role ot of the corn coin conlaw on tua ground of ania dis union union of interest anti and in order to prevent connubial harmony and confidence from ever being bocog di dai it is a general ruda of law that neither tho the bua bandor wife can in any case civil or criminal be ba a vi illness for or against the other an exclusion which belongs belonga to no other of the domer domestic stio relations this rule sometimes produces hardship harda hip but on the whole is u supposed to bo be allut salutary Y walkers Wal kera american taw law now it is not perceived how bow a polygamous lyga ous woman or plural wife can can be rejected oj ad a witness for or against tier her so BO called husband save on the that sho she Is 1 in law bi bis W wals afi let us see to what ces cc such a doctrine might lead while to t permit a plural wito wife to testify fur lur her husband has band might frequently give him an addan ia an litigation yet it 26 is believed I 1 that at ho opposite e would result to ia much greater cater public inconvenience veni ence and injury itis it is con concecia ceia ble nay day and bhoj that lilt in moni many actions tt otin chil or cri climina crimi minA nil plural wives tars ara tho the only witnesses ca by whom a case cao can bo mada out aga abanil polygamous de were the ruo to bo be chlieb lishe jiahe I 1 that such bitne witnesses aes are ara to ba b rejected i it il ii n believed thit it would won soon bo be found to work gi eat c especially in this ibis territory where so many man inon anti and women sustain polygamous relations to each other indeed it would often entirely bar the th avenue to truth nor are these tho the only considerations side rations it if a plural wife when called as a witness for or her polygamous oui husband is to be rejected it must bo be done upon the as aa that she lio it i a wi biti lupon a bithia the ilia weaning of the utah statute ita tute if therefore that statute required such a one of two conic quance must follow either lt that the is in that particular void or 2 21 1 that polygamy is lawful in utah it if tho the utter letter then tho the act of congress Con greM making polygamy a penal pedal has fallen to tho the ground but tho iho vt atah h at statute t to is not void told neither does it logi luo polygamy it mut b i construed to oaly lawful husbands and ana kinei from lot lei jog for or aganina eich each other save rave in the cases expressly oz or c carted eted by the stAt tite in the ewe CASO at tar bur the bo plaintiff 11 firt first eife nuo being alive and residing wibb him As ai bis big wife he called as a witness bis bai plural wife his bis octana wo milo she was rejected and edg g meat mant wont went against the plaintiff tb abo e marriage of the plaintiff null this plural difo afta ifta wi wai all ab blut sly vo no d she was not a 11 wife difo within tile tho meaning of tile tho statute she ought to lo have beba moria as a mit littias bitne the jud judgment beut ought therefore to be reverse rove raea f and a now new trial ordered |