Show THE FIRST WIFE NOT A WITNESS IN the first district court at provo on thursday during the progress of the case of jamesw loveless indicted for unlawful al cohabitation mrs loveless lover hover vias was called asa witness fo for r the prosecution but objected to by the defense as the legal wife of the defendant the court decided to hear test tess on that point piat which he be instructed ted the I 1 ury jury was not to be taken in evidence but was only tor for the consideration sidera tiou of the court coart the lady testified that she was the wife of the defendant fen dant and was married to him in 1847 at council bluffs iowa on being asked askea by the prose cudo n whether her husband had other wives the defence objected to the question and the court sustained the objection tion the question 0 of f the admissibility of the me evidence of the legal wife against the husband was argued and authorities cited and aad the court ruled that the wite wife was not a competent witness in the case this action of judge henderson is strictly iii ih accord with a long jong line ot of judicial authorities with recognized principles of law and public yand with wita tue tile statutes of utah governing the rules of evidence lutitia but Bu itis titia in direct opposition to toe the course pursued in m alie third district bourt where legal jives have been compelled under threats of imprisonment for contempt to testify against their husbands in the fave face of protests on the part of the the witness una of the defendant this too when the law is clearly opposed posed to 10 such proceedings the proposition in the new mew edmunds bileto bill 10 make the lawful wife a competent witness against the husband in ia cases of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation raised more opposition perhaps tham a any other le laiture iture of tue lue obnoxious AT bill it was deno denounced need by persons of both poli political till al parties as a violation of principles recognized in law for ce centuries and enunciated repeatedly peat edly by the supreme court of the united states att the endeavor to foist it upon the statutes of the united states was evidence that no law existed permitting such an outrage for it if fuere nad had open been a provision tuat could be reasonably construed to countenance it ii there would have been no need to try to make e special con berning it but district attorney Dickson whose zeal for the law is so strong that bo be has no scruples about perverting it jn in order to secure victims 10 its penalties by quoting pae utah stat statute i te and cou con another and by imparting to the section cited a strained und and improper meaning clearly iii in ion to the intent ot of the framer fr ameis managed to induce judge zane 19 rule role in favor of his illegal demand for lawful wives to testify against their husbands la im cases of this character the facility with which the district attorney can obtain the decision of that court in accord with his bis desires desi reb has justified the common saying haying that tha t zane as 6 but cheecho the echo of dickson the section relied upon by the dis brict attorney for making the lawful wife teti testify fy against the husband is in in the utah laws of 1884 p which provides as follows A husband cannot be examined reexamined for or against his wife witti without out her consent nor a wife against tier her husband without Ws his co consent nor can either during the marriage or 01 afterward be without the consent of tae other examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage but this exception does not apply to a civil action or proc proceeding ceding by one against the other the point dwelt davel itsou upon by the attorney was that in the offense offe nse of polygamy or unlawful tul cohabitation the husband commits a crime against the wife but he did not nottage take into consideration the important t act that in these cases a naan man is not charged witha with a dime against his wife sue does not ouse mm aim she does not claim to have been ida injured ared in most cases she has been a party to the proceedings which tbt th law seeks beeks to make criminal and jc it is not dot intimated ii in the indictment that the defendant has committed any off enbe aguot hig wile to bettle the ot of the law however ho weer there is is another section contained in utah laws jaws of 1878 which has not been repealed and which will w ill be found on page sec 21 except with the consent of both or in lases cabes of criminal violence nce upon one by the theother theo other neither husband nor wife are competent witnesses besses for or against each other in a criminal action or 01 proceeding to which on one e or both are parties this explains the meaning of the words a crime committed by one against the th other the wife should be protected by law from criminal violence on the part of the husband that is the intent of both statutes it is in harmony with innumerable precedents and is sustained sustainer inea in principle by y judicial decisions of the highest courts in the kates abates and of the nation we hope this matter on a proper occasion occasion will be fully tested and tua the right rightson witnesses may come to in the th courts ot of utah AV A present on mazy many occasions they are not protected but even ladies are subjected to treatment which makes every decent mans blood boil with indignation it may seem to some in individuals divi duals who are not moved by the nobler impulses of humanity that the best way to bring a community into subjection to a law which they rese clesent tit is to proceed to extremes use every trick and scheme known to fog gery and even evea pervert the law to base uses but the better class of mankind will view such doings with contempt and the time must come when law and decency instead ot of illegal rulings and mercil ess severity will prevail in the di district brict courts of utah |