Show THE CLOSE OF THE CASE ATTORNEYS DICKSON AND SPEECHES LN IX THE CONNELLY CASE JUDGE ZANES remarkable CHARGE TO THE JURY I 1 we ve give below the verbatim speech of U S attorney W 11 dickson and the substance of the reply of 7 J L esq of the counsel for the defense de feise felse made at the close of the connelly trial yesterday afternoon also judge zanes Zane to the bIlled lury jury ury the gist of all these thoe was published pu last evening even esen ine inc but thinking our readers might wish to see them in ull full f we reproduce them at the opening hour of the afternoon session nir mr bir dickson arose and addressed the court as f follows 01 if your honor please ilease there Is no f urther further testimony within the reach of the prosecution nor of which we have any knowledge we are forced to rest our case at this point and during the noon recess I 1 have in company with my associates gone over the testimony and we believe that it is insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty believing that I 1 feel it to be the duty of the prosecution se to so advise the court and to request that the court instruct the jury to find a verdict of not guilty at the same time tune I 1 believe it to be a duty which I 1 owe to the court and the lury jury ury ary as well to state why it is that this prosecution rose cution has been set upon foot and why it has been followed thus tar far because more than once the public prosecutor has been accused and censured for setting prosecution pros cution on foot in this class of cases without sufficient evidence knowing that there was not sufficient evidence of course a prosecuting sec officer who does that in any case is censurable and it maybe may be in view of the sudden termination of this case that it may be thought that this was a case of that character that there may be no apprehension on that point I 1 desire to call your honors attention at this time to the evidence of the witnesses who have been produced and sworn here in ia the case as it was given by them before the grand jury that your honor may see upon what we relied as to the proof of the time when this second marriage took place I 1 first call attention to the notes of the testimony as furnished to me by judge sprague mr rawlins objected to these notes being beang read before the jury until their had been given but mr dickson having stated in reply that he did not offer them in evidence the ob objection ec was witti withdrawn drawn sir mr dickson D icko then read what purported to be the testimony of annie annle gallifant before the tile grand jury which will wiil be found embodied I 1 in an ail editorial in another co column said lie he 1 I will now read a portion of the testimony ot of ellen gallifant from the notes of judge sprague 11 1 1 I heard beard my sister say in the store that she was married to connelly it is about abou tone one year ago I 1 believe she was married and married at the endowment dowmont house mr dickson that was the tho testimony which we believe was given by those witnesses before the grand jury in the latter part of 1882 the witness ellen gallifant while upon the stand yesterday did not pretend to give the date of the marriage but she now says it was alve or ago before the grand krand jury she stated it was about one year before she testified the witness anna Galli gallifant fant faut must have known when she was married she stated that she was married in 1882 in the endowment house in salt lake city she goes upon the stand today to day and yesterday and tells us she was luar iuar married quarried ried february 1879 1 I believe that the testimony given before the gran grand d j juny jury u ry was the truth and I 1 think I 1 am warranted in saying that the testimony they gave ave here in the progress ro of the tria trial triai ewas was false I 1 believe believe it because all the circumstances go to show that it was false T the h e testimony here tends to show that it is false faise your honor will remember rein ember the testimony of the mother of this second wife it was to the effect that while the marriage was in february 1879 for more than two years after that her daughter anna continued to reside with her as a member of the family that john connelly did not live there with her as his wife the daughter anna testifies to the same thing this morning we interrogated her further lurther and she says she remained there ther two years before she went to the store store at all ali a elc except ept occasionally to do sewing and then she used to go home nights it was not until 1882 that she went to live with connelly her ner sister sarah Galli gallifant fant faut was living at home with her mother when Ws this marriage la Is now said to tot have taken place and she never heard beard that her sister was married until she anna gallifant went to live with the defendant david gallifant never heard of the marriage until his sister was living over the store of the defendant when we put pud the ree reg carding garding cohabitation lying together as husband and wife annle annie gaulfart gaui GaUl fant declined to answer for some reason when she was wa callei bac hack QU oo the stand this morning she stated that she commenced colia cohabiting bitIng with the defendant a few days after she was married until that testimony came in this morning all the testimony given yesterday tended to the one conclusion that there was no relation of husband and wife no visible relation of husband and wife until about the time when she went to live over that store in the spring of 1882 that is another reason r believe belleve the iven be fore the grand jury is the truth and that given today to day is false because we know that cohabitation follows marriage it always does unless there Is some obstacle or impediment while that is all so while I 1 do not believe the testimony of the witnesses given here its ls true ret yet elwe we are are so hampered by the rules of evidence one rule in m particular which precludes our impeaching pe our town lown witnesses that in the atte attempt t to enter the portals of truth the door is frequently shut in our very faces not being able to attack these witnesses by showing that they swore differently on ap a relous previous occasion we are in this position that wo we have no affirmative evidence of the marriage having taken place at any other tuune than thau that fixed by the second wife her sister and her mother that being the only affirmative evidence as to when the marriage took place and that locating it at a time which takes it out of the time time fixed by the statute of limitations I 1 do not think the evidence would sustain a verdict of guilty and I 1 therefore make the motion I 1 do I 1 dislike to bow my head and retire before what I 1 believe to be impudent falsehood and brazen perjury but dut we are helpless god forgive me if I 1 do these poor women a wron wrong and god forgive them if I 1 am right mr rawlins replied in brief substantially ly as follows 1 I feel that I 1 should say something in defense of the witnesses who have been assailed by counsel I 1 was present here myself when judge hunter committed annie gallifant fr for vor not answering the questions of the grand 1 and jury dilso I 1 also aiso remen ber that at twe the time of the miles tria in 1879 it was currently said that mr connelly had good reasons for appealing as a witness for the defense as he was in the same boat himself there has been nothing in the manner or language of the witnesses I 1 think to te entitle counsel to call them perjurers per jurers the notes produced as being the minutes of the grand jury are merely fra fragmentary records and nothing definite can be told from them NO one knows what may have been asked miss gallifant in that room she went there sick an childbirth occurred three days afterwards and I 1 apprehend her answers would not have been very clear at any rate I 1 merely wished to say this much to protect the witnesses from the aspersions of the other side judge zane then charged the jury in these words Gent gentlemen lemen lemed of the jury counsel for the prosecution stare state to the court that they have produced all the evidence of which they are advise dand which they have been able to find by diligent inquiry and the they y are satisfied that it is not sufficient to warrant a conviction because it shows that the offense offence ot of the marriage to anna Gallifant which wast was the he last marria marriage e took place more than three years before before the alace indictment ment in this case was found in that view of counsel for the prosecution the court concurs there have been a good many circumstances tending to snow show that these witnesses some of them at lehst least have not stated frankly candidly and honestly nestly ho all they knew still that fact does not authorize a conviction A jury must convict if at all upon evidence from the sta statement lement of counsel for the prosecution and the minutes of the testimony taken before the grand jury it would seem beem that the prosecution were warranted ui prosecuting this case and that they have investigated thoroughly thorough 16 so far as they were able to with th this Is class of evidence und the court has given them that latitude to which they were entitled when they were to rely upon hostile witnesses at least some of them the fact that they were hostile to the prosecution is apparent to any candid fair mir minded man listening to the testimony I 1 regret to say gentlemen of the jury that I 1 am sy 0 of the opinion and have an abiding conviction that the ends of justice ustice have been defeated in this case by y false swearing I 1 hope never to see it again in this court or any other I 1 have no idea that counsel for the defendant are connected with it in any way they would not advise any such thing but there are persons who are not guiltless in all human probability in view of the evidence the court instructs you now to find a verdict of not guilty you can find it where you sit |