Show A I A Very Important lon was ren ron rendered L dered by hy the tho Supreme court today toby The Iho I easo Is l one that obtained great no notoriety ii and aud caused some unfavorable action toward the defendant from the national administration It Is IB that of St John C Graham formerly postmaster r at nt Provo city who was wall convicted In the I Third district court of or unlawful cohabitation tattoo tation The alleged plural resided i t for tor A n time In III Salt Hull e county unit the tho legal was wild old to 10 le living In Utah I county or vice Ice versa Tho complaint 1 f was that he ho lived lint with more moore than ono one woman as his wife In It salt Halt alt Lake county t 1 between January J 1 1898 1191 nUll ant May laS 1893 mJ I It wilt will be remembered that the Deer Dl lr II ct et Nes took tho the ground that till thai de defendant d det t fondant could coull not nollie be lawfully convicted ron of or time till offense charged when the facts stated In III the complaint showed shoved that ho lie lived with only anI one as nR his wHo In Salt Lake county count We were derided for tor this view by some omne of or our contemporaries contemporaries but the court to hold hohl the same flame opinion The Tho court also clings to an old principle principle pie of ot law la which for lor omo 09 time fine did not hold holt much sway 1111 In Utah namely that all nil the presumptions of ot Innocence J are to be lie hold hel l In favor of or the defend defendant defendI I ant by the Jury Jur nail and that opinions IC hearsay popular belief bellet o 0 arc nrc not sufficient to prove the guilt of ot the al nl alleged aIs s offender Another i point ont la Is l made clear cloar by b the thet t decision tIt Mint U Is h the holding out anti and antiI I flaunting before the world the Ollor of hous iuM Is nn an ana a clement in tho tio constitution ron of ofa n a public often offense of ot tho the character charged char agaInst the anda and C a that b beIng nR absent or not oat proven tho the complaint falls And further that thal crime cannot consist of or acts which wo sic n wholly holly or In part lawful I The Tho decision marks a turning point In 0 prosecutions for tor the class chus of ot offenses originating under the Edmund act of DC 1882 and brings our Clur Judicial doctrine Into conformity l II wl principles of ot Jurisprudence Jo which hith for tor fora a ft time wore upset I et In n till the rigid rl ment tOLt of or repressive nl for tho time extirpation of ot a 1 system obnoxIoUs to tho prejudices s H of ot tha |