Show THE CASE the decision of the court selow is affirmed the supreme court of the territory rendered the following decision on tuesday in tho case of byron W brown of lehi convicted of perjury at the last term of court before judge judd in this city the defendant byron W brown was convicted in ahe court at peoro of perjury which was alleged to have been committed while being examined as to his competency to serve as a grand juror in the first district court while being so examined he testified that he did not believe it right for a man to have more than one living and wife at the same time and that he did nofa believe in polygamy or the plurality of wives to show the falsity of the testimony evidence was given that the defendant a short time before his examination had advocated the doctrine of polygamy and averred his belief that it was right also that he was and had been for many years a member in good standing in tho mormon church a seventy and that the duty of such an official was to teach and preach the doctrines of the I 1 church that he had lately returned from a mission that polygamy and its practices was one of the acknowledged doctrines of the church and a number of witnesses testified that after ho had given the testimony complained of and it had become known and he was questioned as to why he had so testified he explained that he knew it was right it was not a matter of mere knowledge that it was right it was shown by the evidence that the defendant asserted a belief contrary to his testimony and in accord with the doctrines of the organization of which he was an active member a short time before his testimony waa given and that when he was approached reprovingly by members of bis church and others for giving the testimony he did he asserted a belief contrary to his testimony and undertook to explain that it was past belief and was actual knowledge it is unnecessary for us to consider this claim for he testified that he believed it was wrong and the jury was justified in finding that he had mu bethe claim in bad faith it is claimed by counsel that the testimony only shows that two inconsistent statements were made by the defendant one under the sanction of an oath and another without it and that the presumption is that the statement under oath is true and must prevail wo think there were strong circumstances shown ta corroborate the statement made out of court and bafo e he was examined and that the statements made by him were in the nature of confessions if this claim of the defendants is correct then it would be impossible to show that the tosti mony is been guilty of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation and such persons are disqualified from serving on juries by other provisions of the statute than those above quoted but the statute goes beyond this and disqualifies persons having a certain belief and authorizes the court to make inquiry under oath of persons presented or proposed as jurors as to that belief if the testimony givel in this case does not fairly tend to show that tho testimony given is false it is hard to conceive how it could be shown and the statute would have no force whatever the case was fairly and carefully given to the jury wt think it was a fair question for the jury and the order appealed from should be affirmed |