| Show CASE PETITION FOB FOR A nEnEAR rehearing INd ing cwi imi As this caso case Is of mor more ethan than common nig nib n nob not only the plaint fg in error buta but buu a great number of ula nig uia co ed religionists and habing attrache attracted ld general attention throughout the co country we publish in im full the application of 0 his counsel for a argument reargument re on a portion of the case already he heard rde and on a very im important por tant point not touched upon before the thu court that Js tb the 0 addition of bf hard labor in Is the sentence en anc pronounced against him blin by the judge before benoid whom om the case was ried tried i lin in the matter of the case orl of GEORGE REYNOLDS 1 Plain tiffin error erro r UA vs va tim THE UNITED STATES il I 1 i Defend defendant ancin antin in biar error supreme court of united states error to bao Swo barreme remer court odit of I 1 utah r Teim 1878 to ab S J TO enc a abletha ead jad jules judges aj the P Y i MV court of the united 1 4 the tho petition of ov george reynold reyno 1 6 attlia the plain plaintiff tiff in aror tn in th tb D above case represents idi ili 1 that he Is the in the stil originally prosecuted in id the territory of dutah utah and was wag indicted in the district bourt court of said eaid terri zory tory for having married one amelia while he ads t an i already married to one UL uary mary ann dna the indic indictment being under section of the revised fl 4 st sta a odthe united states stated pt p r I 1 1044 viz I 1 bertlon every evory person having hating a hus has bana dana or wife living who marries another amther whether taw Taa tried or single la in a territory oy or other pias byor which tho the united states have bao exclusive jurisdiction la Is guilar v of and shall be punished by a nine fine jt of not more moie than five hundred dollars and by toy an imp imprison bisoi ment for a term ot of not more t than ban nive five years but vat this section shall shail not extend daany peton person by reason ol 01 any former marriages marriage whose husband or wite wife by such marriage la 13 absent fordce lor nive five successive si ve ye yearb years aty rs and la is not known to such person to bo be alive nor to any person by reason of any tiny former marriage which has been dis solved by the decree of a competent court nor to any person by reason ot any atly former erm marriage has haa neen been pronounced vold void by the decree ot of a competent court 0 on n the ground ol 01 nullity ol 01 tho the marriage mar war contract 2 that oil mid bald rial trial the prosecution onn off offered fred prod pred 0 lle A 4 S atterson patterson JP as i a witness to prove what one arnell amelia a lna gna jand n had testified to lna ina in a former r trial of another indictment by thee tha united states against your petit petitioner foner under the 8 amo same section of oaths tha th a revised statutes whereupon your petit petitioner lopen loper objected to the introduction of this te testimony sti mony because first t it ife ees ses was eis not competent in any event see bee ond it was nobe not shown that the amelia jane tane schofield was dead or that she had been kept away from this thia trial by the defendant and because in any event the testimony as read by the tile witness patterson was ther beat evidence 0 but these objections wore were overruled by the court to which ruling your petitioner excepted and the witness was allowed to proceed and to testify as will a appear by printed pages 1417 14 17 record which las has been heretofore exhibited to your honors your petitioner respectfully represents to yur your honorable coutt that he was injuriously affected by the intro lAtro introduction of this testimony and believes his trial was wab greatly prejudiced there thereby bybe be having had HO tao dt cross fero examining tho the said witness and deprived of the right secured to him under the sixth section of the amendment to the constitution of the united tates ta to be confronted with the witnesses against him hir your petitioner onel begs leave further respectfully to state lie he Is a citizen of utah a territory in the united states stated where a grent great number of people havel haver been 1 indicted indle ted lately for un under derAhe the same section of the revised statute and thattie that the trials of p many of these cases are pending your petitioner ther therefore 0 behalf himself of and of others similarly placed that it ia Is of th the tho e utmost iino lino ortance that the they i or an ampar hearing an sniff luaono prejudices which may eist elst against himself or other similarly situated individuals may be allowed to weigh aga against I 1 net them thom in the minds of a jury and that an opi p port 0 unity to ascertain by cross ex aming tion the real scope and effect of the testimony of the absent witness is taken away it further farther appears from the ro re cord printed on page 10 that your petitioner was sentenced to be imprisoned AT harm abon ABOR gor for fora forn a term terni of two years this was a clear viola violation tion of the law sec of the revised st sta under which your petitioner was wab convicted provided that whoever ia Is found guilty of bigamy 11 shall be punished by a fine of not m more ore than and by imprisonment for a terni term not mor more ethan than five years that it was waa an error to add hard bocra I 1 labor to tho the punishment aided vided all the authorities agree three of he the more prom prominent ones are here referred to t in dainels darnels avd aud t the cb commonwealth namon lve ive alth 7 barr 7 fenna st 4 the plaintiff in iri error was convicted of obtain obtaining inz goods under false pre pro dences the act of bf A assembly imposed a punishment of imprisonment in the penitentiary or county jail at the dis Jis discretion of the court the court below sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment in the county pr prison ison lson at hard labor on appeal this thia sentence was held to be illegal I 1 J saying it iq 14 better to cofiel connine confine oui ourselves selves to the act which munt must be our guide in inflicting the punishment which Is fsr fine and imprisonment t without laborthe labor tha the latter iatter an addition not ranted Wix by statute ghe T ther ha late lae vent veni bated chief justice tilaila alan NAN taver ventured to sen sentence tence a convict without having ther act AI inflicting the punishment before him aim and his sentence was as near as zw could be in thel aids of 0 f the tho act an example worthy of 0 imi imitation tation and if strictly observed would woula say sav saye save Q the court bome some trouble contributing to a ilore more satisfactory administration justlee justice leepy in the cases of commonwealth ys Kr kraemer aumer atmer S binn and bourne the the win kin rung king 7 adolph adolphi ellis ellia 58 if it was held that an erroneous sen een tence must must bs be reversed entirely by the court of error IN ow it la Is true that this error wag was not specifically ass assigned fined or taken but 6 as it is apparent an on the record it is supposed your liono honorable rable rabie court imi iva will I 1 I 1 notice it in having its attention called to it I 1 more moro especially ia a dit dib it to be bo 0 irith idith this lg tion for a rehearing bt ethe the cause rn inflow criminal as well as social the decision of this thia and similar cases cased will bring to the individuals accused abut but also to their and their children your petitioner humbly asks of this honorable court for alre aire argument of ther above mentioned cause caus or of such exceptions as relate reiste to the ad mission of the testimony mobY alleged to bave have been given Amelia jane ad on a former trial triai of a dif ferent indictment to th frit the h ind lah assignments sign ments of error and on the question of the ille lile galit gaUt of the sen ben tence 31 7 I 1 RF bex BEN shenks SHEEKS ja 1 1 G W of counsel wi petitioner t nishi |
