| Show THE difference BETWEEN THE TWO CHARGES IN another column will be found the charge cha rge of judge judae powers to the jury in the second snow trial the first was published in the DESERET EVENING NEWS of january 2nd and we give these charges ift id full because we want them on record and because WP we do ao not wish to depend for our arguments upon a synopsis nor do injustice to any one errors sometimes occur through the addition or omission of a word which alter the meaning of a speaker entirely and comments based on such errors are necessarily fallacious on comparing the two charges tp the jury we find some differences which are important at the first trial judge powers charged the jury that it was not necessary that the evidence should show that the defendant und kind these women or either of them occupied the same bed slept in same room or dwelt under the same roof vf in the second charge those words we have placed in italics csire are left out it if they were right in the first ethey would have been right in afie second place their omission implies discovery of their error oui and that error is fatal to the first rb charge it renders the definition of co cohabitation dorte a littion teal ical and hostile to the of the I 1 supreme court of the united states to say that a man can with two or more women aben he does not dwell under theasle the sama roof with either of them is the same as saying that ithac a man can cohabit without cohabiting in the first change judge powers stated that the edmunds law says there must be an end to the relationship previously existing amon among olg amista this is omitted in t the me second charge and wisely aso so for the edmunds law law says nothing of the kind and the ruling of the supreme court ol 01 of the united states shows that the relationship lation ship may mav continue with no criminality if without cohabitation in the place of this incorrect assertion the second charge contains a quotation from the ruling of the supreme court on cohabit cohabitation tin which is a very sensible substitution the next and most important difference is the insertion of A the paragraph which we have previously discussed on the presumption of cohabitation with thogal the legal wife that presumption having been set aside by the evidene evidence according to well known rules of law it had no existence xI stence in this case and by charging the jury as to this point a grave rave error was committed resulting fi in n the conviction of the defendant on the judges instructions in direct opposition to the evidence adduced by the prosecution these cases will brought no doubt before the supreme court of the territory after sentence has been pronounced and the errors we have pointed out but will wih be lully fully exposed before that body unfortunately one oi of the judges of that court Is the person who made the mistakes and the injustice will be committed of permitting him to sit in adjudication upon his own alleged wrongs Is not justice in utah pretty much of a farce t I 1 |
