| Show THE PETERSON CASE JUDGE HUNTERS CHARGE TO TIIE tile JURY in the case of andrew peterson charged with voting at the delegate election on november 1882 judge john ajl AJI unter delivered the following charge to the jury on wednesday march 1884 1881 GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY julty the indictment in this case cha charges i cs that andrew peterson the defend defendant ant now on trial bea before ore you on the ath day of november A D in the county of summit and territory of utah was a bigamist bigi mist that is to say said andrew peterson on the day of march A 1 I 1870 having a lawful wife living and not divorced or separated from him at salt lake city in said territory was married to and with one caroline johnson that said lawful wife and said caroline Jo linson johnson are both still living and said peterson pei pee terson has not been divorced from elther either thereof that oil on said ath th day of november A 1 iss 2 said andrew peterson being so as aforesaid a bigamist in said county of summit at an election then and there held pursuant to law for delegate in the congress of the lu united states did without having a lawful right to vote and knowing that he had no lawful right to vote knowingly did vote at said election contrary to the statute of the united states against the peace and dignity thereof ills his honor then cited the law of congress against unlawful voting for a or delegate sec sec see U S revised statutes and that which provides that no bigamist or polygamist shall vote sec sec see of the edmunds E munds law declared that congress had exclusive jurisdiction over this territory for the purposes named in these laws and proceeded to say before you can convict the defon dant under the indictment in this case you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there was all an election held in the sai sat said sald d county t y of summit in the territory of utah on the ath day of november A D 1882 for a delegate to the congress of the united united states that said andrew peterson voted at that election that he voted without having a lawful r night right to vote to determine that bilat the defendant voted without having a la lawful v f u I 1 right tight to vote the allegation of the indictment i u huing hwing for its predicate that at the ti he was a bigamist you in empl from the evidence if or not at t ime he voted if you lind find that he did vote he was a bigamist bl ap under the act of congress defining what bigamy is as hereinbefore stated to you the burden of proof is upon the prosecution in this case it does not shift in a criminal ca sebut Is upon the pra pro elution throughout to establish defendants gull guilt t bli beyond yond a reasonable doubt the defendant is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and in case of a reasonable doubt unless ills lils guilt is satisfactorily shown you must acquit the defendant A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt it is that state of the case which after the entire comparison and consid consideration I 1 ration of all tile the evidence evi dince leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding r conviction to a moral certainty of the t truth ruth of the charge you are arc the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses of the weight of the evidence and of the facts the laws re regulating elating the exercise creise exe ex reise of the elect elective ive lve franchise an fn in this te territory are within the constitutional powers of congress and all the interests of society and good government demand their enforcement it Is the duty auty of the jury to acce accept pt and follow and apply the law law as laid down by the court if the court errs in its understanding of the law its error can be corree corrected ted upon a motion for a new trial or by an appellate cou con court rt on an appeal and the injured party righted in the premises if however a lury jury declines to follow and obey the law as declared to it by the coart but administers in the case its own idea and understanding of the law apall applicable ca to the case there are no means by which its error if it makes one can be corrected such a course if pursued by j urles uries would leave the law forever unsettled and unknown A criminal intent is generally an element clement of crime but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does if he knowingly intends to do do and does do what the law which he is conclusively presumed to know forbids forbids he does the act with the criminal intent the law requires and no other evil intent need exist the crime of illegal voting consists in the voting of a person not authorized by law to vote if an y one not so authorized does vote in this territory at an election held for delegate to congress he votes unlawfully and commits the offense the law aroh prohibits 1 b 1 t s in such a case it is no de defense lense and SUC such h a person can not be heard to say that he believed or was advised that he had a right to vote if he acts up upon on his belief or construction of the law he acts at his peril and must abide the consequences if a man and a woman a aree agree ree and promise one with the other to eke take each other as husband and wife and said agreement is to take effect immediately I 1 upon their exchange of promises t they ey marry each other within the meaning of the law no subsequent intercourse or carnal connection with each other is necessary to constitute or validate such marriage A marriage like ilke any other fact may be proven by the admission of the defendant fen dant coupled with other corroborating circumstances and if such evidence taken as a whole is sulli sufficient clent to aduce a conviction in the minds of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the jury ought to find the fact of marriage as a fact faa in the case in in order to convict a person of the crime of unlawful voting at an election held for delegate to cog CoZ congress gress on the ground round that he is a bigamist or polygamist am at the time of ngit is not ne necessary cist ess iry that the status ofa defendant as a bigamist or polygamist shall be proved or nixed fixed by evidence of a conviction of the crime of bigamy or polygamy all that is required in such a case is proof by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant at the time alleged voted at such an election for delegate to congress and at the time of of voting had two or more wives living 11 and undid ore from him if the jury believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that years a ago tile the defendant was married in denmark to the tile woman who is known in this case as caroline peterson and afterwards ter wards in 1870 and while said caroline peterson was living and from defendant that the defendant agreed to take as b his is wife the woman known as caroline johnson and at the same time said caroline johnson agreed with defendant to take him as her husband and both at the same time assented in their minds to such a contract and if the jury juny further find b jug yond a reasonable doubt doubt that on or about the ath day of november A D 1882 in the county t of summit alert llert in this h s territory both saiu salu caroline peterson pe s 0 n and caroline johnson were living and from defendant the defendant presented a paper or ballot on which the tile name of any candidate was glinted printed or written as that of a candidate ate to be voted for as a delegate to 10 congress from this territory to the judge of election at an election held at said time and place for said delegate in congress and that such paper or ballot was rece received ived by said judges of election and deposited with other ballots received by them at said election I 1 charge you that the defendant voted at such election for delegate incon in congress without having a lawful right so to do and that it is your duty to find him guilty of the offense charged in the indictment marriage is a civil contract requiring in the consent of both parties A valid marriage must be a contract to which the law will attach certain incidents and obligations including an obligation on the part of the husband to live with and protect the wife furnish fishher her a home and support her and the children of the marria marnia marriage e accordia accor according dir dij 1 to his circumstances in life cohabitation in fact is not necessary to a marri marriage ap for the par les ties ies may waive or refuse it but the right to actual cohabitation unless there be incapacity is one of the incidents of a marriage the civil contract of marriage so sd far as the law enforces it is one und under which the parties contract the relator relation of husband and wife in this life and any ceremony intended only to effect their relations after death is not in law a marriage courts do not enforce or take jurisdiction in matters which involve only religious belief and do not affect the condition or property of the parties while living if you find the defendant did not in tend to marry the witness caroline johnson or assent to a civil marriage with her during the ceremony or at anytime any time no in marriage arria e was contracted which would have been gen valid had the defendant been free to marry ills his assent was necessary to a contract of marriage if vou find the defendant and caroline johnson united in a ceremony in 1870 which in accordance with their religious bellef belief was intended to effect tile the union after this life of the said caroline johnson with her deceased husband that in such caremon ceremony y the defendant acted only in the name and stead of and as the religious and temporary sponsor or proxy for fr the deceased husband and responded in his na name me and that this was the substance and scope of the ceremony then it had bad no element of a civil marriage in determining what the parties or elther either of them intended and how bow they or either elther of them understood the ceremony in 1870 it is proper to consider the subsequent conduct of the parties and whether they assumed the relations to each other of husband and wife the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt a marria marriage apparently valid and which wa would uie uhe d nave have been valid in law only for the fact that tile the defendant had a wife llin ilin living and if from the whole evidence on this question you cht entertain ertain a reasonable doubt the defendant should be acquitted 1 |
