Show THE MILES aase CASE THIS tam morning john H miles milea appeared in the third district court to receive sentence the tho particulars in full are given below to understand the grounds on which hla hia counsel made the motion for a new now tri alit is nece necessary bary sary to give the seve ia reasons sons assigned and also the instructions which defendant desired to be given to the jury and which judge emerson refused to present fust wo we append in full DEFENDANT instructions the defendant abka aska the court to ise use ne the following instructions to the lau jui s for the crime of bigamy hod boa and aoa the defendant is charged with hwang having first married one emily spencer et and nd ther thereafter e marrying owe owens us the baid eaid emily spencer neer still lavt living now in order to convict the defendant three distinct facts must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt doubts to wit wust tie tle uie defendant de was first married to ar aa as charged Is second that thereafter he mar mai ried caroline owens third that emily spencer was living at the time of suc such h alleged second marriage aj the jury are further instructed ted that in a prosecution for bigamy the first marriage must be established by proof to have bee been na a valid subsisting marriage at the time of the second marriage and to prove this there must be evidence of a arriage marriage in fact 3rd ard proof of a valid marriage involves questions of law as well aa as of fact and the mere calling a woman his wife by a person charged i with bigamy la is in law to prove a fact ota ofa of a marriage having taken place between them must be proven the first marriage mariage and its legality must be affirmatively proved by evidence beyond the mere d declarations ea lar confessions admissions admission s or reputation of the defendant des fen dant and if the jury believe from the evidence that there ia Is no i proof that defendant and F emily emliy mily spencer were ever married beyond i the mere admissions contes confessions or declarations of the defendant then they will find the defendant not guilty ath beyond the fact of a valid marriage the jury must also find from the evidence bey bes beyond on d a reasonable doubt that the alleged marriage I 1 with emily spencer if at aily ally all ail was the first marriage and was entered into prior to tile the alleged marriage with caroline owens otherwise the defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty ath in prosecutions for big bigamy amy the mere confessions or admissions or declarations of a pasty paty are not alone sufficient evidence ot at the ficat marriage iut lul llene theia mus must proof of a marriage in fact facts other who bathe the tho defendant ia Is entitled to a of not guilty rth the jury are ate further in the Is held hold to exact strictness in proving the name of the person with whom the second marriage is alleged to have taken place and isyou if you find from the evidence that caroline owens is not the name of the person ferson with whom defendant ii alleged to have contracted the second marriage I 1 then the variance is its fatal and you will find for the defendant if the jury find from the evidence that instead of marrying one caroline owens the defendant hauled mauled one caroline owen malle oi 01 caroline 0 owen wen by name and sucu luch name then the variance is fatal 1 mand wand and the verdict will bo be not gull it lf havo have any doubts f upon any of the foregoing questions to be determined by oy them then the law gives to the defendant deren delen dant the benefit of every reasonable doubt and if from the evidence you have any I 1 reasonable doubt as to whether the foregoing facts or of any of them bave have been clearly proven you will give the defendant the benefit of such doubt and find a verdict of not guilty loth it if the jury find that caroline owens owena at the tine tima ef of the alleged marriage with defendant knew or had reason to believe that defendant had previously married another then in contracting sueh euch second marriage she became and was an accomplice to the beame came lith A conviction can not be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless he or she is corroborated by other evidence which in itself and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the lense offense of and the corro conro bora bors tion ia Is not buff lelent if it merely shows the commission of the lense offense of or the circum stan stances ces oes thereof in all criminal prosecutions circumstantial evidences cs of a conclusive nature may often avail where whore direct testimony la is sible eible but it must be testimony not reasonably capable of any other interpretation terp and must be that class of ta testimony 1 from which nothing but guilt can in tile the nature of things be deduced calling avo awo a woman a alfo 11 and even holding herout to the world aa as such la Is not of itself suM sufficient clent elent evidence of a valid marriage in cases of the kind now on trial for tor it would be unsafe to permit a conviction upon any proof which is susceptible of two or more interpretations and upon which any theory can be reasonably based of innocence of the otonce charged I 1 we next give the defend defendant for the MOTION eor FOB A NEW TRIAL the tho defendant assigns the fol lowing lemons epou which he would rely on his hla motion for a new now trial and on appeal to any court it such motion is denied to wit the court erred in allowing the attorney for the united states to ask the jurors or any of them if they believed in polygamy or that ho he or they belonged tb the mormon church or allowing any questions as to the religious belief of any juror J u 2nd the court erred in appointing to try the challenge of the united states district attorney to t any and all of the jurors mentioned in the foregoing statement 3rd ard it was waa an errer error for said to inquire into or consider the religious belief of any of the jurors ath the court erred in allowing witness w I 1 Mrs MJ foreman to td relate a conven conver eaton matlon naton between miles defendant f nen fen dant and carrie owens in order to prove a marriage with emily spencer and the court erred in allowing the question 1 I ask you it you heard this said baid sa id by miss owen owens it she is your wife what am 1 17 and also allowing the same questions to be asked ot witness miss foreman the court Coutt erred in allo nilo allowing wing in evidence any declarations or admissions of miles made at the house of angus M cannon 0 on n the evening of the alleged dinner party ath the court erred in ruling that the mere calling a woman wife by defendant was able to prove a marriage with mith her ath the court erred in allowing the questions to witness D EL a wells as to the description 0 of f the dreas areas at 01 roses lobes of persons visiting uie ule endow ment meat house the court erred in allowing witness carrie owens to be sworn as she is the alleged second wife and BO so far as appears the wife of defendant Mlle MUe sand no first marriage or other marriage of defendant miles was wag proven to the coart or jury that ad admissions missions or declarations alone can not prove a marriage in a case such as the ono one at bar ba r and that carrie owen was an incompetent witness and disqualified from testifying at this stage of the till 3 case othi 9 in tho The Court erred in excluding the proper testimony of witness mrs sarah cannon when the defendant proposed to show that there thero was a marriage with carrie owens and that defendant and carrie as husband and wife slept together at the house of witness on the night of the marriage and court erred in excluding the siony of same bame witness that carrie owen sent for defendant mil ull miles es as her husband and said he was her husband loth the court erred in its ita instructions to jury and said instructions are against law lith the court erred in giving givin 9 the first request asked for by the I 1 i the court erred in giving requests nos 2 3 und 4 asked for by the prosecution the court erred in refusing 11 gan and falling ailing to give ulve lve ive instructions nos noa oa 1 I 2 as as 56 6 ap 78 ay 9 ios 11 and 12 2 asked for by the defendant the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict and the same was against the evidence in this that in prosecutions tor for bigamy the tho mere confessions or admissions or declarations of a party are not alone sufficient evidence of the first marriage but there must be proof of a marriage in fact ether other otherwise wise the tho defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty 11 the evidence was aleo also insufficient in this thia that the name of the person with whom defendant is alleged to have contracted the second marriage appears to be caroline owen malle maile and not carrie owens as charged in the indictment and the evidence shows that defendant married caroline owen maile and not carrie owens 15 there was no evidence evide nce show ing the first marriage or a in fact with emily spencer wherefore defendant john H miles prays the judgment of the court that no judgment be rendered or sentence passed herein I 1 and that said verdict be set bot aside and sad a new trial granted herein TILFORD HAGAN and W dus DUB nimroy att atts ys for deft lastly wa add a full account of he the proceedings in the court this morning by judge van zile in tho the case caso of the united states against jolin john I 1 miles I 1 I 1 move fon for or judgment by the court mr miles stand up by judge tilford one moment I 1 your honor perhaps it does not devolve upon us but we suggest that your jour honor first dispose ot of the motion for a new now trial by the court I 1 was about to da do so buu but bi at I 1 propose to follow the order laid down in the statute to inform him of the indictment plea and verdict and then dispose of the motion for a new trial mr miles you were indicted by a grand jury of ot this district for the crime of bigamy or polygamy violating a law of the unite united d states against that upon your arraign arraignment me nt in court you pleaded not guilty the case went to a jury and you were convicted found guilty by the th jury ejury now have you any legal cause to show why judgment j edg should not be pronounced against you now judge tilford you may refer to the motion for lor a new now trial by B y judge tilford we call the attention of the court to the fact that we have in made ade a motion for a new trial and ili ill filed ed witchita with it a statement upon which we rely we W are not disposed sir to present any argument to the court but bait leave it entirely to the discretion and judgment of the court bythe by the court my recollection now is that there is no legal lega 1 ground for new trial I 1 am aware of no rule of law violated in the course of the trial and your motion for oora fora a new trial will ba be overruled over aled to which of course the defendant excepts you have no other motion to make by judge tilford no sir by tho tha court have you anything to say bay for yourself why the judgment of the court should not fiot be pronounced in your case by mr miles I 1 presume it would not be of the slightest use I 1 have been arraigned plead not guilty and the jury haye hare baid said I 1 am not guilty and I 1 am here for lor sentence by the C court ourt you mean the jury have found you were guilty by mr miles yes yea that is what I 1 mea men meant nt I 1 hope you will spare me a lecture in the matter I 1 am not in ina a humor to receive it just now by the court I 1 am not in the habit mr miles in sentencing prisoners pris ODers for any crime which I 1 have been called upon to do very often to give them much of a lecture when they are called to the bar of the court to receive their sentence because I 1 am well aware that it is not a time when they feel very kindly disposed or in a mood to receive a lecture or 0 sermon from the court and I 1 think in your case the most eloquent sermon I 1 can make is the judgment I 1 am about to pronounce unc e I 1 know of nothing in case mr miles which appeals to the mercy of the court by the defendant I 1 dont aak ask any sir by the tho court in the years that are to come when you are serving put your sentence unless it la Is reversed or modified modified in some respects af course you will ba brought face to face with the fact that it is better to obey the lawa of the land for wlben a person wilfully violates the law and commits a crime he must be held bold to that crime clime and I 1 tru trust st before the yeara years are expired that you will have got rid of and rooted out of your youn mind if it has a lodgment there now the heresy that it is a violation of any religious liberty when a man ie in called upon by the commonwealth by the government to answer for the commission ofa of a crime 1 I hope that you will get let thoroughly rid of any such buch notion as that in your case mr miles it ia Is the judgment of the court that you forfeit and pay to the united hailed states a fine of one hundred dollars and that you be confined in the nebraska lm penitentiary tent iary at lincoln nebraska for a period of five years the limit which the law fixes by mr miles allies I 1 am extremely obliged to you sir by judge hagan we now desire to take an appeal and desire your honor to t fix the bond on appeal the old bond of five thousand dollars was wag continued pending the appeal to the supreme court of the territory the case now goes to the supreme court of the territory who will doubtless dispose of ok it during their present term the court ia Is in session bession this week the decision of the lower court being s firmed affirmed if which may be considered a matter of course an appeal will then be taken we presume to thu tho supreme court of the united states state when it will be seen whether tho the court of last resort will sustain austain the practice of applying a religious test tea toj to jurors uror aror Ps and of violating established rules of law for the purpose of vindicating the law jaw |