Show THE HIGGINS TRIAL THE FROU HIS AND AM LIVED WITH ONE binic iury A VERDICT OF GUILTY JUST THE SAME today to day the case ol of the united va TO james higgins Hi egins of west jordan came third Dist district rift court the indictment charges the defendant with unia w fully cohabit cohabiting ipg idith his two wives mahela B higgins and mary a higgins fliggins and contains con five counts embracing the he following periods september 1 1883 to march SL 1188 1884 A april 1 1884 1 q may 31 IM june 1 1885 to december 91 1885 jati 1 1886 to july 31 the following jurors were called george J M harvey joseph foreman W mcray B R WC W crane rane wells dark clark thomas davis charles ells edward berry frank me mc laughlina I 1 L osborne and E M bynon I 1 I 1 joseph foreman thomas davis davia and E M maynon barion were peremptorily challenged by the defense bowman cannon joseph foster fester and M dusseldorf were called to fill the vacancies and accepted mary foreman higgins was the first witness and testified 1 was married to the defendant 12 or 13 years ago go in this city have lived since sept ast 1st 1883 at west jordan hi shouse I 1 I 1 have not been away from home any length of time duding that period I 1 know mahela B higgins she has lived i at west jordan not in the same house with me 5 the houses bouses are but a few feet apart we lived in the same house a few weeks when I 1 was first married the defendant has lived in the brick house since sept 1 1888 he was away from home from january of this year until some time in july I 1 think I 1 do not know where he be was we separated about four years ago he has not been to stop in my house since he used to a portion of the time before the separation I 1 edid idid did not say to the grand j jury ary that this continued until a year ago I 1 told them four or five years ago this was a few months BRO ago mr dickson read from the grand jury i notes and the witness dewied denied making int the tie statements therein contained I 1 have supported myself the cause of the separation was the passage of the edmunds bill he be has not visit visited edme me as his wife since then he may have been in the house several times I 1 was sick on one or two occasions and he inquired after my mv health I 1 have taken meals in his other house bouse my relations with his other wife are glea pleasant sant I 1 visit her could not say how w often of ten it might be once a month I 1 have taken dinner there a few times the defend defendant antu was as at work may have seen him there but do not I 1 know I 1 have been there in the evening a few times but very seldom I 1 do not know whether defendant was there or not he may have been there on some occasions may there has been a change in our relations neither mrs higgins biggins nor myself have had anyo any children hildren oy by the defendant during the past three years the defendant came to my housego bouse to inquire after my health this was when I 1 was sick 1 I 1 was quite ill two or three times my henith is not very good 1 1 do not remember the dates when I 1 was wa sick it was 1 I in the summer time I 1 dont think defendant was in my house in 1885 do not remember his bis coming there 1 1884 or 1886 1880 he may have been there in 1883 1 I do not remember any occasion 1 I kenov he called when I 1 was the cross examination of odthe the witness by mr dickson was objected to by the defeo defense seand and the former declared that he exercised as much patience as he could the court instructed the witness to state only oaly facts chich she could recollect witness witness to mr dickson I 1 was sick in 1885 I 1 remember that the defendant called caled at the house during that year ho he may inky have called when I 1 was not sick mr dickson in IL a severe tone commanded the witness to look at himbur the defense insisted that she could look in what direction she pleased so lon long as she answered his questions question si witness esp to mr dackson the defendant may have hilve been bf my house during the past three years when I 1 was not ill he has not been there a dozen times there may have been abeen six months months between his visits I 1 here have not sustained stained the relation of wife to him at tiny any time during the last three years mr dickson held a short tion with D deputy uty marshal smithy Smithia and nd then called tm win dowden lo 10 mr doden te testified stifled I 1 kno klao mr and his two wives ilive I 1 live about halt il a wile mile from them I 1 dont o to their housle house copee a month I 1 have 0 en to hitrys house perhaps once a year I 1 have been twice the past mouth month may have been there therein in P 1885 have not seen defendant in ia her house bouse for several years never saw him there la in 1885 do not remember seeing him in 1884 1 have only been there in thres threshing aln time thae I 1 dont ing him there in 1884 int deputy marshal smith was sworn I arrested the defendant 1 k ie I 1 was in toe the field when he saw set us I 1 coming he hid bid inthe in the grass I 1 found him and to k him to his house there are two rooms M m marys house I 1 think there are three in the other both houses are under the same roof witness to mr richards one house Is of brick the other frame I 1 think it I 1 is one building bui building laing there is la a space ber bej 1 t tween the roof covers toe space the ithe I 1 I 1 passageway passage way is covered with part of the roof mr dickson announced that the prosecution rested james winchester was called for the defense and testified I 1 know the defendants fend ants houses they were built separately ara tely the log one first the brick house was wag built five or six years after four or five teet feet distant the alleyway was also roofed over witness to mr dickson the alleyway was covered after the roof was waa put on the new building mr winchester was then called for the prosecution the defense objected to the reopening of the case objection overruled witness te testified stifled I 1 am acquaire acqua acquainted iMe ep with defend defendant int and his wives I 1 live quarter of a mile distant 1 I was atthe at the house bouse last fall fail the defendant and both wives were lu in the brick house when I 1 called I 1 the case was then submitted to the jury without argument On motion of mr dickson the fifth count in th indictment was dismissed the court charged the jury that if the defendant associated with his plural wife as a wife rifea a verdict of guilty should be rendered if the circumstances hore bore a semblance of the association being inthe marriage relation the verdict should be gul guilty ity he must be acquitted anle unless ss proven guilty beyond a reason reasonable adale doubt the jury then retired and the court took a 4 recess until 2 rpm p m at that hour the jury returned and gave a verdict averdick of guilty on all four counts thursday september 30 0 was named as the day for foe passing sentence |