| OCR Text |
Show Jury Finds Richard Jessup Guilty After 5 Minute Session "Guilty" was the unanimous verdict ver-dict of the eight jurymen after little more than five minutes deliberation, deli-beration, following the hearing in the Fifth Judicial District Court, St. George, Tuesday, September 19, in the case of the state of Utah, plaintiff, versus Richard Jessup, defendant. The charge being be-ing unlawful cohabitation, defined in the statutes of Utah as a felony. Complaints were sworn to by Sheriff Antone B. Prince. With District Judge Will L. Hoyt on the bench, the case proceeded rapidly. Opening at 10 a.m. the jury of eight men was impaneled in less than 50 minutes, the following being selected: Wallace Wal-lace Blake, Lloyd R. Jackson, Ervin Milne, Bert G. Milne, Frank Sullivan, Samuel H. Crawford, Arthur Bracken and B. F. Anderson. Ander-son. The defendant, Richard Jessup pleaded "not guilty" in the preliminary pre-liminary hearing held Monday morning as per order, with Attorney At-torney Claud T. Barnes of Salt Lake City as defense lawyer, and Attorney J. W. Musser, also of Salt Lake City as advisor. District Dis-trict Attorney Ellis J. Pickett and County Attorney Orval Hafen supported the state in the trial. A scant 50 people attended the hearing. Attorney Hafen presented the case, stating that on or about September 1 Sheriff Antone B. Prince with Sam Ful-lerton, Ful-lerton, night watchman of St. George as deputy, went to the home occupied by Fred and Richard Rich-ard Jessup in the vicinity of New Harmony and on evidence from observation, by admission oi Richard Jessup, and on information informa-tion from two women, determined to their satisfaction that Richard Jessup was guilty of the felony as stated. Lola Jessup, the first witness called by the state was not pre-( pre-( Continued on page tenj Jury Finds Richard Jessup Guilty After 5 Minute Session (Continued from first page) sent and on certificate of obstetri-tian obstetri-tian and other information, it was developed that said Lola Johnson, stherwise known as Lola Jessup was nearing confinement and it was deemed unwise that she be called to testify. Attorneys for the state took time for consideration considera-tion and agreed not to demand the appearance of said Lola Johnson. John-son. Samuel Fullerton was called as witness for the state. He told of visiting the home of said Richard Jessup with Sheriff Antone B. Prince. He said Ida Jessup, legal wife of Richard Jessup was in the Kitchen of their home, and when he entered, another woman left in haste through a rear door. Sheriff Antone B. Prince said he did not see Lola, but when he asked Richard Jessup where she was, he answered that he did not know. The question was repeated, Sheriff Prince stated, and he finally asked Richard Jessup where his wife was saying if he would call Lola in it would facilitate facili-tate matters, and that the delay was merely messing things up. Richard Jessup's legal wife, Ida Jessup, stood near them in the yard at the time and Richard Jessup said he did not know where his wife, presumably meaning mean-ing Lola Johnson was. Questioned as to when he saw Lola Johnson Jessup, Sheriff Prince stated he saw her at the home of Richard Jessup September Septem-ber 2 when he called with Justice George F. Whitehead, with subpoenas sub-poenas for her and Ida Jessup. He said Lola Johnson was in the living room, sitting on a bed and holding a baby on her lap. Answering Ans-wering questions put by the state, he said he noted Lola Johnson or Jessup was to all appearances in a state or condition of pregnancy, preg-nancy, but appeared to be in good health. Recess was taken at 12 o'clock until 2 p.m. At resumption of the case, Mary Carling, one of the three women listed in the case of the state vs. Fred Jessup, and cousin of Lola Johnson Jessup, was first witness called by the state. She was caim, moaest ana very careful care-ful and courteous in all her answers. ans-wers. The frequent objections raised by the attorney for the defense, were in most instances over-ruled by the court and questioning ques-tioning proceeded rapidly. Through the answers of Mary Carling, the following facts were developed: that she is a cousin of Lola Johnson John-son or Jessup, has known said Lola Johnson most of her life, that on or about September 1, 1939, Lola Johnson was visiting at the home of Richard Jessup near New Harmony; that Lola Johnson is pregnant and was at the date of this hearing ill at the home of Richard Jessup near New Harmony and nearing confinement. con-finement. Witness said she did not know who was supposed to be the father of the child to be born to Lola Johnson, did not know who was the husband or assumed husband of Lola. Attorney for the defense questioned ques-tioned Mary Carling very briefly. Sheriff Prince and Deputy Fullerton Ful-lerton were the only other wit nesses called during the afternoon, questions bringing out evidence that Richard and Fred Jessup offered of-fered no resistance to arrest; that neither denied assumption that they were cohabiting with more than one woman; that Richard Jessup, talking with Sam Fuller-ton Fuller-ton on the drive to St. George in Sheriff Prince's auto on the evening of September 1, stated that he wished others would leave them alone, would mind their own business and permit them to do likewise and live their own lives. He said the laws of God were not the laws of man and they chose to live by what they deemed the laws of God. This testimony was fully corroborated by both Sheriff Prince and Deputy Fullerton. Both the state and the defense rested shortly after 3 p.m. and recess was taken while the clerk prepared copy and the judge deliberated. de-liberated. At three minutes to 4 p.m. court was resumed and Judge Will L. Hoyt delivered his address to the jurors covering 13 1 10 ui 11101.1 uv. Livyi 1, County Attorney Orval Hafen for the state made the opening address to the jurors, rehearsing the highlights of evidence presented present-ed during the hearing, restating the law as affecting the charge of unlawful cohabitation; and covering the salient points presented pre-sented by the Judge in his instructions. in-structions. Attorney Claud T. Barnes for the defense followed with a highly dramatic approval of the character of the Jurors and their evident intelligence as well as that of the court and the Judge, then denounced the entire case as trivial and all the evidence evi-dence produced as unworthy of consideration, silly and meaning- less. He said if this man, indicating indicat-ing Richard Jessup, is guilty, then also might all men within the court room be likewise guilty, in the fact that women were some-1 times visiting in their homes. ' Credit is given Attorney Barnes for doing his utmost to sway the jury in behalf of the defendant, Richard Jessup. In rebuttal, Attorney Ellis J. Pickett for the state, expressed the fact that it is no pleasure to take action in this or similar cases, but the laws of the state are definite, and if the people break the laws, the punishment recited must be met, and it became be-came the duty of officers of the law to bring such cases before the court. He said the facts are not pleasant but if jurors were honest enough, courageous enough, they would face the issues and make decisions as the law implies; leaving leav-ing further action and leniency to the court in whom power to lessen les-sen sentence and provide amelioration amelior-ation of punishment is vested. The jurors were then given final instructions and went into conference, Charles Andrus, returning re-turning with their unanimous verdict ver-dict of guilty. A jury was waived in the case of Fred Jessup, tried on the same count, and a decision of not guilty was given by Judge Hoyt. In the case of Grover Cleveland LeBaron, the court postponed rendering a decision until after LeBaron's attorney had filed a brief in connection with certain legal points pertaining to the case. A sentence of not more than five years in the pententiary was imposed by Judge Hoyt on Richard Rich-ard Jessup, whom the jury found guilty. The sentence was postponed post-poned for a time and he was admonished to report to the court at regular intervals. Attorneys for the defense, Claud T. Barnes and J. W. Musser, stated that they will appeal the case and take it to the supreme court. The appeal is said to be based on unconstitutionality of the Utah law. A report in the northern papers stated that the above defendants were residents of New Harmony. Officers returning from New Harmony Har-mony state that the people of that community were anxious for this statement to be corrected, declaring that they were not residents resi-dents and had simply moved there to the outskirts of the community. |
