Show THE DEAN CASE MRS DEAN COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HER HUSBAND THE IN COVERS A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS THE prosecution PROVE THAT DEAN IS A MORMON the case of the united states vs ja jos s H dean was one of those taken up i in the third district court today to day the calling of the names of the witnesses occupied some time and created considerable sid erable amusement owing to the inability of the court officers to read the district attorneys chirography the defendant was arraiz arraigned Ded yesterday afternoon on two indictments and pleaded not guilty today to day the following were called as jurors niels gillis W J handley C W gulliver S S maxwell aaron aron sullivan sulliva 0 E brim D C murphy IV E bleaney Bl enney i 1 L C jeffries Jeff nes L bougard E Z I 1 A whittaker henry ti carrigan arrigan C E brim was peremptorily challenged by the defense and N called to fill the vacancy the indictment proceeded with alleges that the defendant from jan 1 1886 to april 1 lived with as his wile wife sarah barkl A 4 dean in salt T take ke county and with florence ridges eidnes in the same relationship in davis county mrs sarah A dean was the first witness called mr sheeks objected to mrs dean being beina sworn as a witness against her husband the court overruled the objection mrs dean was sworn and testified that she was jos H deans wife and had been for over nine years lived in salt lake city had lived there four years from jan lith to april 1st ast 1886 her husband lived with her kne knew florence ridges she also lived there part of 1885 left deft on january 1st alst 1 1886 she was assisting mrs dean in dressmaking witness remembered her husband going to logan in june 1885 never heard her husband say florence rid ridges g es was there he be said she was on the train this was as before florence lived wit with witness florence had made calls at the house before she came to live there witness never called at miss ridges Ridge shome home witness made a contract with florence for dressmaking and shared the proceeds florence also boarded there and did most of the sewing the defense objected to the testimony as immaterial the court overruled the objection witness continuing the difference in the amount of sewing to be done by each was taken into consideration when the contract was made the defendant was not a party to the contract but may have known of it there were five rooms in the house witness had four children there was no limit of time to the contract florence left the house because there was not work enough for both witness saw florence a month or so after and had not seen hermince her since cross examined when the agreement was made it was understood that witness took care of her own house and children witness had employed others to do the same work as florence did and in one instance divided the profits had worked at dressmaking 12 years the last time florence was at t the h e house was when mrs dean was sick to mr dickson florence did not do the house work might have helped on a few occasions did very little of it the defendant was at logan over ni night ht K to mr mr dean went to logn logan on business for his father who was in england to mr dickson the defendant to told id me this a day or two before he went did not say what the business was did not know whether defendants father had any interest in logan mrs agatha P ridges was next c called alor florence nce ridges was her laughter daughter and was 19 years of age 9 did not know where she was list last saw her in february 1886 she went away alone witness received a letter from her a couple ot of weeks since the letter was destroyed mr dickson where was the letter written from the defense objected to the testimony as immaterial mr dickson urged that it was material to show that the prosecution had not been able to find florence ridges the court overruled the objection witness continuing there was iio no heading headin gr to the letter witness did not not know how long iong after it was written she received it when florence went away she did not say where she was going and witness did not know this was the only letter witness had received witness did not know where florence wasand aasand made no inquiries about her she had bad never left the house before in a similar manner florence went to logan last J june une she was away three or four days went to live wife shortly after florence had bad only been to logan once she lived at defendants fend ants until january 1886 she was away a month subsequent to this where witness did not know she was home three or four days witness was satisfied that florence was safe did not know whether she was maalea married never inquired of the defendant about it had bad heard beard that she was married to him defendant never spoke to witness of marrying her daug daughter liter or to witness husband that she knew of mrs adelaide awood testified that florence ridges was her half sister witness lived in davis county florence ridges had stayed there during durin 9 trie past six months came there after january and stayed three months left there over a month ago witness did not know where she was had heard f from roin her shortly after she left florence came caine to witness house bouse la in a buggy jos H 11 dean was there tile the same day saw him driving the bushay he left the same day he called there again about once a week on saturday generally the defense objected to the testimony the court ruled that if the circumstances indicated marriage that was all that was necessary the proof of marriage was not a necessity witness continuing did not know how long defendant stayed there had bad seen e a it imi k t 4 ere next dext days he never visited the house before florence ridges was there supposed he be occupied the room with florence he left with florence when she went away this was on sunday evening defendant was there but a few times to stay over overnight night w when hen witness retired on one or two occasions she left men defendant and florence in the parlor did not know that he stopped all night did not know whether they were married or not mr dickson would you have permitted them to remain together as they did if you had not known they were married witness yes sir mr dickson you were willing to convert your house into a bawdy house witness no sir mr dickson did you believe they were married and occupied the same room objected to by the defense mr dickson characterized the witness as hostile to the prosecution the objection was overruled by the court witness yes sir I 1 did not know whether they were married or not had heard they were I 1 made no inquiry about it the court then took recess until 3 2 pm this afternoon the case was resumed and mrs emma rich asked forbat the lady was not present george C wood was then called and testified that he bad been in the temple at logan the church of jesus christ of latter day saints sometimes celebrated marri marries wes in the temple mrs sarah A X beau dean was recalled her husband was a member of the church of jesus christ ot latter day I 1 saints after waitie maitina wa itina a short time for mrs emma rich who failed to come the prosecution rested their case at the request of the defense john south was called for but did nut respond mr dickson asked mrs A D wood whether she knew mr deau dean had a wife living in the city mrs wood replied that she supposed he had the defense then called john south as a witness he testified that he know the defendant wit witness iless was sec secretary of f the ward sunday school zo lot it convened every sabbath at ID 10 am from january to the present the defendant had bad been resent every sunday except the jay day of march cross examined there were 40 to 47 off officers leers and tea teachers chers j defendant was teacher of the theological class witness made the record of defendants defendant lis attendance the defense rested their ca case seand and assistant district attorney hiles hilea made the opening argument for the prosecution he was followed by young and sheeks for the defense mr dickson closing for the prosecution |