Show THOMAS CASE associate justice powers blics his opinion the S J herald contains con talus the following opinion lori of associate justice powers io thomasa casa read rea lit ln the cupi erne cale court on oil saturday batard ay mo 0 lat act chief justice bauc nod and judge il Boren tati concurred lite defendant WAS indicted toe for poleg abny tried convicted nud and sentenced sentence to i the b ofle penitentiary n 1 te a flary the substantial aver ot of t alit kel indictment were that be lutei married with one imma kainu Eve evriett ietto while at the same time his bis lawful wife hannah powell convell S impson iva was llulu the court charged cliar sed the jury that if trie evidence convicted them beyond a 1 roa rea doubt that the deleo dant nifty led emma eguia liverett elci ett as charged lad and that at tile same time be had bad a iam lincul ful wife livid then they should find a verdict ot of guilty provided that the jury urther foona fonna that tile the litt maningo was lawful jury t its as that to establish tip papi pt of c it was not ry to produce a mat mal ariage eel bifi pate or evidente evi denpe neither need eye cyca vi witnesses it nesses of 0 the cerenio ny be I 1 that nay pe be otovea lile like any other fact act by elie de 16 ci rate tie L la rations or admissions ol of tile defendant but bill th tint thit it the defendant could not flat ho be con mated unless he wits was loigu I 1 and valid 1 I I 1 doubt that lie ho NY was as guilty as flIg fliger ed in hie the jury that they were the solo eolo judges ot of tile cl edibility of the Witt lelis kind and of 0 tight to be given to the trie tue defendant arget urge t it it lie hie coln t ei tell lit in chai gill tile jury t hat thoy they could filter train tile statements 0 or I 1 admission ol of the hie defendant youe of the testimony is brou brought glit up ill u ilia hie li a cini ili ur itt pic ilia little that there was ej il dence to lo sustain the he charge that thai rou ell stall sou sell actually existed and that elie mar 1990 took place lii it I 1 lu 1 u to 0 lap blaip aril at a 1 ot f guilty under ilia chaice large as ai san ivan the jury must have been convinced bayoud doubt that a mufti lanful ilae ila e lind lad been entend luto into bett vaen tills this 1 I anc ana tile the defendant la ILI there is if no law ro agu ua lu 1 a no form fonn or 1 Is required C 1 aad od no i lecoin decoi d of mai I 1 li a i keta Z Atair url lase ae a e is left us as it was at the i common law nill and a t consensual inar marriage ringe is lit in nil all respects valid there need be tin 10 witnesses present it if tile aro are competent to contract pon tract all that es Is a present file maninges inan man iago inget Is 1 complete when there is rt it nil f fice 1 cc 1 anti and mutual consent by CA 1111 IIII abl e ot of although kilthou ii lowed by the jud judge gc cicada ecail a unni number berof of athor ins in support ol of lili ills petition lu in this particular Is i but one ot of the makiv incidents to tile marall inan liso 0 je lation it is not to it taape bee vs iii scy 11 I 1 V 6 4 a 1 our ii irv jaw a decondi de solely upon the miltn il al consent ot of hie e c tr acting pait panics les illey may enter into n to mb I 1 11 Inal liage lela tion secretly and lle ilia filet fact liny be a un tin uni i knouer to nil all save lite and apol As asins aas sal sited d on oil hie elie r couple may meet incer on oil ilia highway lit any little glinc in ili the day or light null thele contract fl a valvil mari lige whether it twists to good morals to leave I 1 alie lie matter I 1 ticks loose null and completely ly at tile llie ill nf n tile hie pinnies pin lies it is i not lot fur us its to discuss that is matter to for the legislature we ire have to talve take the law as a vic c find and it no for moimoi mol act becq essential aud oil no pitiless buciu the question that arises it aises is how hoa v lie fact of inai ili ilage gebe be proven surely it iti is not neves gill 3 tu to produce A m 1 rl 11 ac eel crr ti fleite or evidence tor for tac the law ichii acs none learly clearly the need not be proven by eye N Iti lesses lor for a 1 3 in I 1 arl ini lace Lige is valid u without witnesses to iol no a ceremony 11 i necessary it if esi c i dence of that nature wits was I 1 people the lawa 1013 calir n ill A callia could secretly inal many lyas as allany women na it lie pleased and the ibe law coulta not reach hinl him P aloot bof that two pir lies h hinc iva treat at eil cite othel AJ af I 1 nd aud and wile wife have libed together as such und lave field each cauli allier out to llie elie world as such snell 1 is to lo enable ii cum cent i t or jury to find that at t gome pi calous time the pill tic st did da 1 ii I flet fact to co 0 lie o husband and wife tills till iii fit it alic 1 conclusion ot of nil all llie file ot 1 l nc ile lual or a agreement to lie I 1 ic buis bind and wita is the lilt nicil I 1 I c rutt fact the july must aind T alie I 1 a loode ol of life the blida holding ng out tin tile lie declarations el I 1 r a or r L adol 1 blous ol 01 if tile the accused 1 ind 11 d the like ire arc from MIMI the elie baet may be intel intoned led the conclusion lit at elili li that lit in order to prove the first on oil in it indictment fur for poly polygamy ganly it Is lie nut t necess itty to lo produce eye ol of the file coico rony neither is ii it io prod sice i iiii iria or oilier p ovi cit by tile declarations mid find lk s of 0 ilia accused and lucli 11 cl I 1 declarations are birr pa oper r to I 1 bo be by bylle I 1 lie jin y as te aiding to I 1 prove an all actual it 11 such declarations convince the jury beyond a ica tunable doubt alie panties N cie illa inui I 1 fell icil that 14 i ull all I 1 ila t is dequire ill while the alie complained of if inight have been in tre cilie lully fully worded sil salil 17 the ibe ag lian ICU as U whole carefully alir ti I wrights of the defendant fen fet dant daut bind ile he wa wai 1 net thereby and tile llie judgment of tile couil below bent lo be |