OCR Text |
Show John Doe Fisher: grand larceny. John Cranton and James McCarthy; burglary. burg-lary. Anthony Cockrell; assault. Charles Thicde, telling liquor without license. Charles Ford, assault. P. II. Taylor, disturbance of peaces. Court Notes. Judge Dickson is engaged at Ogden. The grand jury began to grind again this morning. Judge Anderson appeared on the bench agaki this morning. The church escheat cases came up again this week in their' regular place on the docket. Naturalization papers were awarded Anton Ofgreen, a native of Sweden. and Henry Hill, a native of England, this morning. Judge Anderson announced this morninir that from this time until the regular docket comes on he would hear motions etc by consent con-sent or agreement. Application for the appointment of a guardian guar-dian ad Vtrnt, was placed on tile in the case of Frederick Whitehead vs. the Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co. this morning. The action ac-tion is one in which plaintiff seeks damages for injuries sustained through the breaking of a telephone wire. He was slightly burned and sets up that he was otherwise injured. A FIERCE BATTLE. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AS AFFECT-INC AFFECT-INC JURY QUALIFICATION. The Everett-Howard Scandal Comes Vp On a Lively Bout Between the LawyersJudge Law-yersJudge Anderson on the Bench Again The Setting of Case. The Everett-Howard seaudal is again the drawing card on the criminal calendar, the second trial having begun this morning. , The opening between counsel betokens some sharp lighting before it again reaches the jury room. The first brush between the lawyers took place during the cmpanncl-ment cmpanncl-ment of the jury. "Are you a member of the mormon church?" was the question that precipitated it, Mr. Hamilton for the defense contending that under the present attitude of the courts towards the church, that church member-Ship member-Ship was not a bar to qualification as a juror. The question was directed at juror Larscn. The court ordered the juror to proceed. "I am a member of the church," replied Mr. Larsen. Mr. Stephens If in the course of this pro-ceding, pro-ceding, Mr. Larsen, it transpired that prior to the issuance of the manifesto the defendants defend-ants were sealed together under the then existing ex-isting rites of the mormon church, would that have any influence on your mind as affecting af-fecting the criminality of the act? Or in other words, if it was developed that two years ago Howard took the co-defendant as his mormon w ife, would you regard that a legal marriage and bar tothis action? "No, sir," answered the juror. Mr. Larscu was excused. "Are vou a mormon, Mr. Shurtliff ?" "No, sir." ''Would that fact prejudice you agiinstthe defendant?" T,-..1,J .... t , There was a sweeping challence both sides exhausted their peremptory rights and it was after 11 olclock before the jury was empaneled em-paneled and ready to proceed. The prosecution iu its prologue stated that it wouldjundertake to show that the Everett's he a decidedly short, stubby avenger and she tall, portly, almost to masculinity hod married mar-ried twelve years ago in England. That coming to Ogden Everett engaged in business busi-ness where he made the acquaintance of Howard. That subsequently Mrs. Everett joined her husband at Ogden. Howard was introduced and became a bosom friend too bOsomly in fact for Everett's pear of mind and that he lured Mrs. Everett from her home. That they were accidently unmasked and the prosecution would seek to prove further tfthat she had been banqueted by Howard, that he had introduced her as his" sister 'round among his country tenants and finally taken her to the doors of Logan temple but no further. The defense "proposed to show that Mrs. Everett's life had been one long, dismal, eternity of woe and worry, and thaiall Howard How-ard did was at the request, of Everett who sought a temporary home at Howard's house. Everett, the diminutive husband was sent to the witness chair. His little black eyes snapped with tire. The defense prepared to gag him, however, and sprnng the law which denies a husband's right to testify to anything any-thing that will convict his wife. The point was yielded by the prosecution, who then made a rather unexpected coup and dismissed the action as against Mrs. Everett, who now maintained her position in the scandal as chief witness for the defense. The hu6hand was thereupon permitted to proceed with his testimony, the burden of w hich has already appeared in these columns. col-umns. ! i e - iTseJTrial Docket. Judge Anderson made the following .-settings .-settings this monaing'upon which hearings will be had in their order. rr.iDAT, OCT. 27. Joseph E. Gallaher trustee ct a!, vs. The Yosemite Mining ct Milling company. John S. Both well vs. Jauie3 C. Armstrong ctal. Etta Clinton vs. James G. Harris et al. WEDNE5PAT, OCT. 2$. John Crepn vs. Andrew Lundin et al. '.Vra. V. Block vs. Salt Dake Eastern Railway Rail-way company. THURSDAY, Oe:T. 20. Wasatch Mining Co. vs. William Jennicss et al. John W. Goldthwaite vs. John T. Lynch et al. E. F. Ferry vs. Joseph Gorlinski et aL FItlDAY, OCT. 30. Peter Anderson ct al. vs. John Creen. The Boss Mining Co. vs. The Crescent Mining Co. E. E. Ostlund vs. Thomas Goff et al. MONDAY, NOV. 2. United States vs. Certain Real Estate belonging be-longing to the Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Sainti. United States vs. same. United States vs. same. Rachel Williams vs. J. T. Gilmer. George H. Tousey et al. vs. George A. EUcl ct ul. Calvin Cartright vs. Joe S. Blackburn. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3. F. liz. Davis ex. vs. Hiram Bloonquit ct al. F. L. Parker et al. vs. Olliver W. Zane et al. AValdemar Van Cott vs. Elias Harris ct al. P. Anderson et al. vs. Matt Connelly et al. Park City Mining company vs. Matt Connelly Con-nelly et al. Charles Peter et al. vs. James Lowe, administrator. ad-ministrator. Robert C. Chambers ct al. vs. G. W. Seavy. Peter Anderson ct al. vs. Matt Connelly ct al. FRIDAY, NOV. 9. Roy L. Davis ct al ys. Emma N. Davis et al. Park City Mining Co. vs. WT. II. Dodge ctal. MONDAY, NOV. 9. M. L. Powers etal vs. The Centennial-Eu-rcka Mining Co. Jno. Blazzard ct al vs. Mark B!az.ard ct al. Jno. Blazzard et al vs. Caleb D. Blazzard etal. Jno. Blazzard et al vs. Orson D. Blazzard etal. Same vs. Lucy D. A atts et al. Same vs. same. P. Fhelan vs. M. E. Brown ct al. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10. Clhas. Blandin vs. Salt Lake county. J. W. Farrell vs. Earl D. Gray. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11. Jno. B. Ingram et al vs. Adolph Hankamer. Fdwd. S. Gilbert vs. Harvey Hardy ct al. Win Hardman vs. Wm. J. Uovev ct al. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12. Lucinda Clark vs. Irw in Hutchinzs. Jesse Bell et al. vs. C. D. St. George. Henry L. Williams vs. Jesse Bell et al. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24. Old Jordan Manufacturing and Milling company vs. the Niagara Mining aud Smelting Smelt-ing company. Today's Orders. The following orders were made before Judge Anderson this morning: Sarah Crow n et al. vs. E. R. Clute, assessor; as-sessor; Tt-set, bv consent, for October 21. Pioneer Savings A: L. T. Co. vs. Levi C. Cone ctal.; twenty days allowed to answer after service. William DeSersly ct al. vs. Erich T. Kycllstrom etal.; amendment, substituting Asa F. Stanford instead of P. T. Blythe, and continued until 2 o'clock this afternoon. Tuesday's Settings. The call for tomorrow on the criminal calendar takes in the following cases: John Stringham; grand larceny. John McUivney and Thomas Sullivan; burgbry. |