Show local and other matters from FRO THURSDAYS DAILY APRIL arril I 1 the R reynolds eynolds polygamy case the case was resumed at hali hall half past oue one after reces areces yeste yesterday iday day afternoon terno ter noon orl oll mrs elizabeth eilzabeth reed was wag the first witness bitile sg 9 sworn on the tho part of the prosecution witness was wag acquainted with th the respondent george reynolds mary ann tuddenham was witnesses sister witness was asked whether she knew whether mary ann tuddenham was the reputed wife of betge reynolds the defense objected as the indictment stated that the name of the wife of the respondent was luddenham tuddenham Lud denham instead of tuddenham also that the question was leading and that the evidence that might be elucidated would be irrelevant until a marriage was proved in in fact the objection was overruled the answer was that mary ann tuddenham was the reputed wife of george reynolds the district attorney next asked the witness if she had ever heard george reynolds speak of mary ann tuddenham as his bis wife objected to by the defense who quoted a number of authorities bearing on the tho point raised objection overruled the question was answered in the affirmative george georgo reynolds and witnesses sister lived together as husband and wife and had three living jiving children another young woman understood to be respondents wife also lived with him her name was Va amelia gAmelia schofield she had bad lived with him since some time last year john tuddenham was was the next witness sworn for the prosecution the daughter of witness mary ann tuddenham was the reputed wife of george reynolds and they had lived together in that relation since 1865 witness was present at the marriage ceremony in 1865 it was solemnized jn in the endowment house salt lake city they tiley had lived together since then and had bad three living children did neu net know that hohag he had haa any other wife or reputed wife A the defense here stated that they admitted the first marriage mrs mra mary tuddenham mother of mary ann tuddenham was next sworn there was another woman at mr reynolds Reynold shouse house besides witnesses daughter her name was amelia J schofield did not know that she sho was the second wife of george reynolds james evans was the next witness ne sworn worn for the prosecution he was acquainted with the respondent and his family was also ac sue quainter quain ted with first wife mary ann tuddenham had seen another woman at mr reynolds house who had aben been introduced to him lm by mr reynolds anamelia Amella ameila reynolds amos J lucas was next sworn witness was a married man was married at the endo endow ment house on the 3rd ard of august 1874 saw george reynolds there and also amelia J schofield oft on chat that day neither of them told him what they went there for did not see george Rpy rey reynolds in company with any one in in particular did not see george reynolds ey I 1 olds and amelia J schofield go into the room together where the marriage ceremony is generally general lr performed did not know what george reynolds was there for witness was acquainted with amelia J schofield and had heard mr reynolds speak of her as his wife did not recollect that lie he spoke of her in that relation at the endowment house had heard nir dir mr air reynolds speak of his contemplated marriage with amelia J schofield previous to august 3rd ard 1874 ju julia julla lla ila reynolds was wa next sworn for fhe the prosecution witness was sister to mr george reynolds she bhe knew that marv ann reynolds was his wife wire knew amelia jane schofield could not answer a clup plue question stion put as to whether the latter at lived with respondent as his wife did not see mr reynolds and amelia J schofield married to each other henry pusey was sworn for the prosecution was avas acquainted ua anted with george reynolds acab relieved ile he had three children his cifes name was mary ann tuddenham another young woman named schofield lived with mr reynolds never heard ahe the latter say that amelia J schofield was his wife david day was sworn for tilo the P prosecution ose use cution but knew nothing of the case ames amos J lucas was re callei recalled by the prosecution daniel H wells performed the ce ceremony when witness was married john lyon was sworn on the part of the prosecution was slightly acquainted with mr reynolds witness was employed in the endowment hodde could not positively state that he saw mr reynolds there then had seen him there several times as he belonged to a weekly prayer meeting held there he di dit dil I not know anything about mr reynolds being there with amelia J he might have some conceptio conception n about it did not know why he be had tad that conception the endowment house was used for religious purposes other than the solemnizing solemn izing of marriage rites and numbers of people went there thomas thhomas taylor and marinda hyde were sworn and placed on the stand but they knew nothing 0 of the case D H wells was sworn on the part of the prosecution was acquainted quain ted with george reynolds could not say bilat that lie was acquainted quain ted with amelia J schofield could not ra member remember that he performed a marriage ceremony between the two persons named on the 3rd ard of august he could probably fi find nd out whether he had done so and was allowed till tomorrow to morrow morning to obtain the information abinadi pratt was next sworn and examined on the part of the prosecution was acquainted with mr reynolds but not with his family did not recollect whether he was at the endowment house on the ard 3rd day of bf auguar august had seen sein mr reynolds there within three years witness thought he be had been there to get married but could not say so positively could not say thai that he had seen him married his strong impression was that he fie had seen him married did not know the lady to whom he believed belley gohe he saw say him married believed it was within the last eighteen molit months hs was not acquainted with amelia 3 schofield or reynolds did not recollect collect te seeing amos J lucas there cross examined by tho the defense witness did positively not know the lady whom he thought lie he saw at Endowment the house could not identify her if she were present orson pratt was sworn for tiie the prosecution witness was not cognizant of f the tho fact that a record of marriages was kept in each branch of the church did not know who kept any record he knew of branches blanchee where such records were not kept by the defense witness came here with the pioneers in 1847 he was connected with the church of jesus christ of latter day saints as a teacher the witness was asked what relation the doctrine of polygamy bore to the belief and practice of said church the prosecution objected and anda a short discussion ensued as to the admissibility of the thle question when mr sutherland stated that he would bring up the point at another stage of tho the trial the object being to show that polygamy was a portion of 0 f the religious faith of the respondent and that the practice or exercise of reli rell religion 1 aion alon could not be constitutionally hindered or interfered with amelia J reynolds the lady with whom the respondent was alleged to have contracted his second marriage mairi age was next sworn for the prosecution and took the stand on examination she stated that she was married to george reynolds on the 3rd ard day of august I 1 1874 at the endowment house salt lake city president D H wells performing the ceremony TO DAYS proceedings the trial was resumed at 9 gam aam a m today to day counsel for the defense stated that they had learned from mayor wells that he had satisfied him self that he had performed the ceremony of marriage between george reynolds and amelia J Scho fieldon the 3rd ard day of august 1874 and they therefore admitted that rendering it unnecessary to recall the mayor to the witness stand the prosecution here rested counsel for the defense made the following offer which was objected to by the prosecution the objection being sustained by the court the del ael defense ense offen offer to prove that on the day of july 1843 and for many years before a numerous rell reli religious a fous lous sect commonly called mormons cormons Mor mons existed in the united states that on that day a revelation from god was received by them celestial or plural marriage asa as a religious r duty and a sacrament that a large jarge number of mormons cormons possessing this revelation and desiring to obey the commands contained in it emigrated in a b body adl from the states where whom they ha had previously lived and on the day of july 1847 arrived at salt lake where this court is now being held here they settled for a permanent home on territory belonging to the republic Be public of mexico that here they became citizens of that republic pursuant to the laws thereof that they were brought with the territory of utah within the jurisdiction of the united states by the treaty between the united states and mexico in 1848 that at all times after receiving sald said revelation during their migration to and always after their arrival in this territory polygamy as us eD enjoined JoIned in said revelation has been taught to and believed in and practiced among themas a sacred duty made known to them by said revelation that its effect has been benign morally and physically that it is practiced as a cardinal and vital part of their religion and not at all aa aan aaa a ciak cink cloak elak to lustful pleasure that in this territory there are now at least mormons cormons Mer Mor mons nearly all of or whom have been reared here owe their birth to plural marriages or are in seme some other way connected by sacred ties to that conjugal jugal institution called polygamy that they believe it to be a divine institution and that they will be indebted for their highest happiness in another life to their fidelity and obedience to it in this that this defendant holds their faith falth that be he is and has been for more than ten years a member of tile the mormon church and a sincere believer bellev er in the erity verity v of said revelation and that it was his solemn duty to obey it that this is the first prosecution for polygamy in this territory that he be in common with other inte intelligent 11 1 gent mormons cormons Mor mons has always believed that the act of congress of 1862 purporting 1 to make polygamy a crime is co contrary n arary to the luib constitution of the united states and nd that for this reason no prosecutions under it havo have been hith hitherto ebbo efto instituted that mor mons generally and this defendant in particular are so firmly grounded in the faith of their church alid ald in a belief in said revelation that they regard 11 the said act of congress as having been passed in consel consol conse quence ot of a misconception of tho the rell reil religious rellious ious lous character of the mormon people and that it if imposes under the name of punishment an additional cross nich they must bear beal to fulfill their duties that while they naturally shrink from froni these pains palus and anil penalties they are all walli willing to bear them rather than lose the high estate in another line life to be bb gained by celestial marriage the true and full text of the revelation on celestial marriage was then offered and considered bi the court coultas as read mr sutherland asked the court to note an exception to the refusal to accept of the foregoing proposition t on the court then thim charged the jury as follows GENTLEMEN OF OV tiie THE JURY the defendant is charged with the violation 0 the following statute of the united states viz every bevery person having a husband or wife living who shall marry any other person whether married or single in a territory of the uni united cited states or other place over which the united states have exclusive jurisdiction shall except in the tile cases Apeci specified fled fied in the proviso to this section be adjudged guilty of bigamy aud and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a nine fine not exceeding five hundred bundled dollar dollars and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years provided nevertheless that this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage 8 shall all ail have been absent ausent for five successive years without being known to such person within that time to be living nor any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by the decree declee of a competent court nor non to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been annulled or pronounced void by tile tiie he sentence or decree of a com potent court on the ground of the nullity of tha the marriage contract 1 I instruct you that congress had the power to pass this law and that it is not in violation of any provision of the constitution in other words that it is constitution aland that a person who is guilty of entering into such a marriage as is prohibited by this statute is guilty of crime and I 1 further instruct you that the respondents religious belief can have nothing to do with the tho case he cannot shield himself from the punishment for doing what the law declares to be a crime under a plea that the act is in accordance with his religious belief erty is not violated when the citizen is called upon to answer for his external acts which are in violation of a valid law of the tile jand land before you can lawfully convict the respondent you yoa must find from the facts either proved or admitted before yuu in evidence that while a prior legal marriage existed between him and the person named in the indictment as is mary jane tuddenham he entered into such a relation with the person named in the indictment as amelia J scho lielda ileida fiel dus das 3 would have beena been a valid marriage itself there is no statute in this territory prescribing a form of marriage or designating any particular persons before whom the ceremony must be performed or the agreement entered into to constitute a marriage r here where there are no civil r requirements e iaea ui re ments a simple expression of mutual consent between the parties to be henceforth man and wife wire is sufficient without the ties the ithe first marriage is a admit admitted ted by the defendant b by y his big counsel in your hearing bearing and besides you have the testimony of a party who was presen present tat at the ceremony who says he saw them marrie married ct thi this marriage once proved to exist and the wife shown to be still living it is incumbent upon tab respondent to show that it has been annulled before he hd can avoid the consequences flowing from this relation eryou if you find that while a former marria warria marriage 0 e existed and within two years from the fir ding of this indictment 1 the of october last he entered into sueh such a 16 relation with the party named in the indictment fitment as would be a valid mar marriage age but for the prior matrimonial union your verdict should be bb ril gil guilty lIty in order to make out their thein case against the respondent the government has hag only to establish these two facts viz a prior valid marriage with a woman still living and A a subsequent marriage m arria anria e while the brior prior one existed within the time I 1 have ave mentioned that would have been valid alid v but for the prior marriage gas asin in all criminal cases so in this the respondent is entitled to any reasonable doubt you may have as to his ruilt guilt that is whether he actually contracted a second marriage while the prior one existed I 1 this doubt should not be a captious one that you have to seek after to hunt up under a desire to screen the respondent but a fair reasonable doubt such a one as |