| Show 0 P ARNOLD SENT TO THE penitentiary P the result of his endeavor to ab obey ey the edmunds law motion for a now new trial overruled led fifteen months imprisonment 1450 fine and costs ball Fend pending luj appeal refused BeC used today to day the motion of the defense f for or a new trial in the case of the united states vs orson P arnold 1 was taken up in the third district co art nearly two yeara ago the defendant was arrested and indicted by the grand jury for unlawful cohabitation with his wives alicia arnold and fanny faunys 1 linuell linnell arnold on april IM he pleaded guilty to the charge promised to obey the he law in future aua and was released on oa payment of a fine of in may 1886 he vas as as aaen in arrested a and n d a three count indictment charging him with a similar off offense eusa with oe fee same women as his wives was found fouad against him the first caunt covers the period from may 1 to lo july 11 the second second from aug 1 to dec 31 1886 and the third f from domjan jan I 1 to may 11 1886 at the september terra terin of court he was tried aud the jury gave cave a verdict of guilty on all three counts his counsel moved for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and that the court misdirected the jury in the matter of law in support of the motion for a new trial mr rawlins kawlins argued that as two elements were necessary in this class of cases the marriage status arid and marital asso association dation there must be some proof in support of each or a verdict of guilty could not be found evidence of mere inere association was insufficient to convict the evidence in this case had all been to one effect and the jury had boright no right to carreto a conclusion opposed to the cholor evidence or to cast aside all the testimony of the witnesses and proceed without As to tile the marria marriage estates status shiell existed prior to al april r il 3 13 3 1885 it ceased at that date as the parties had a agreed to io discontinue that relation and the defendant f bad promised to obey the law subsequent to that time the relationship had bad never been resumed and the manner of living had been changed baiD ged the defendant remaining with kis legal wife the public declaration ot of the defendant was that he would conform to the law dissolve the relationship which former ir lT existed with the polygamous wife the evidence showed that that thai relationship had never been resumed the registration tri tion of df tile the polygamous wife as mrs arnold at the hotel la in was no evidence of hold holding hag out there was no deception practiced and the parties occupied separate rooms there had been no acknowledgment of each other as husband and wife the district attorney Att oraey had argued that the alleged marriage must be declared a nullity this proposition though not recognized by atie cour thad its effect on the ury the position ot of the district attorney was waa utterly absurd the idea that a man to place himself outside of the charge of criminality must invoke tile the aid of the arm of the government was loc kocl I 1 ish the ida that a man could not place himself in harmony with tile the law of the land without outside assistance would make the law ridiculous and go to show that it was not founded j on reason and justice A man maa should not be required to ask the government or auy any agen agency i cy thereof for the privilege to be innocent he ought to be able to do that within himself hii himself self tile the law had made the defendants CHILDREN legitimate katar that punishment mi might lit not fall on them it did not deprive them of a mothers care or deprive their father of the privilege of visiting them tile the father owed to his legitimate L children certain duties among these he was not required to take them from their mothers caret the controlling power of a father was still due them it was his duty to give them social and domestic care to administer to their material comfort he should not be compelled to leave to others the performance for mance of that duty which the law en enjoined 0 OM him and him alone ile he could care for support and visit his children inthe presence of their mother to say that he could not attend to this duty personally was to east cast them adrift this cae was very different to one where a man claimed both of the women as his thereby giving out the ostentation of a polygamous hoti household As to asking the court to decree as a nullity a polygamous marriage when both parties knew it was void and the law did not recognize it NO reasonable COURT could entertain such a request if one of the parties had been inveigled wrongfully into an illegal status the court could give the deceived person relief in this case the defendant had no power and would not have been permitted by the court to do as the district attorney deman demanded deJ the jury had however paid attention to the attorneys argument rather than the courts charge relative to this la in view of the district attorneys argument before the grand jury the court should have instructed them not only that a divorce in this case was not necessary ces sary but that it was a circumstance which they had no right i 0 con sider as bearing on the guilt of the defendant under these circumstances the defendant was entitled toa to a new trial the evidence had shown that he be had only visited and administered to tile the necessary wants of his children he bad occupied no position that would shock morality or decency there was no testimony oay to 10 controvert this statement the defendant bad done everything that he could lawfully do his public declaration in regard to his polygamous wife was of just as much force as if in reference to his legal wife a divorce had been granted yet a in the latter case if the defendant had had visited hl hi sick chi children childrel lorel thollef though h in the mothers custody would woul the aw punish him it ceria certainly could not be so inhuman no sane person would consider this a continuance of the marriage relationship with reference to the registration at ogden the most reason creaso nab aale le course to expect was that the mother of defendants children should be called mrs arnold 11 that was the name by which she was known and it was a matter over which the defendant had no control ile he had no right to designate her by any other name and thus brand hlaj legitimate children with infamy if thi the defendant defenda Vt was guilty under trie circumstances shown by the evidence then NO MAN WHO PROMISED TO OBEY THE LAW COULD BE BB INNOCENT the jury evidently did not comprehend the easy case when they came to the conclusion t hey did As to hie hia visits to his children the defendant must be allowed a reasonable latitude under the law the court bad said tie lie might do this and nothing ni tras this could be pointed anted to by the district attorney abere there was ive evidence on tile the part of tile the defendant that he kepi keic within the bounds of duty mr varian argued against the motion for a new trial stating that so much had bad been said gaii in reference to the legal duty of men in the posit position iono of the defendant that further discussion ot of it by the attorney for the government was when the defendant promised to obey the law be promised to conform to that law as cons construed trued by the courts lie he promised that he would so regulate his conduct that the ultimate end sought 11 would be continued on attained lie he might conclude for himself what he would do to show to the world that the polygamous relationship had ceased but it was AT HIS WN OWN and he could not complain ift if when the caise cabe was again considered by a jury it was decided against him he to avoid this accomplish the ultimate end he should not make his to his chi dren a cloak to cover an illegal rela tion ship with their mother toe situation was a harsh oue it was true but they were themselves responsible they should bear the burden when the consequences follo followed tved their own acts when the jury considered the evidence they mus must Bave started with the proposition that the defendant had promised to obey the law when the consequence of his crime had bad overtaken taken nhim him this was a circumstance against him he had bad not endeavored to keep the law until it laki laid its ita heavy hand upon him the jury had a right to consider whether the line lin of conduct pursued by the defend defendant alit was in good fal faith ith with tha law or was in continuation of the unlawful f ul relation As to the visit t to 0 ogden married men do not take women other than their wives on a trip 11 like ke that they had gone to ogden anti and remained ned 1 a day this fact was A VERY suspicions ONE owing to the frailties of human nature especially in the relation the sexes the defendants legal wife was the one who should have accompanied him bim to ogden he not have taken a woman with whom he had bad had no marital relationship when he be had visited the house he had gone into info it bythe back door he iad had also gone out gut riding aldin with his polygamous wife and the SIN sick child this fact alone was not cent tp to convict but in connection with other circumstances tle the jury had a right to ay it was simply a cloak to cover cove other rother association they had a right to say the explanation of the visits was not satisfactory that the sickness was not so urgent as to require the defendants presence with the ick bick child the defendant should have shown to in a more marked way his intention to obey the law if that intention was honest so far a as s the world was concerned there had been no ceasing to flaunt the existence of a poly polygamous household the defendant should should have so regulated his conduct that the world could have no doubt of his intention sand he had himself to blame if he did not the obtaining of a decree from the court might even have been insufficient to announce the separation to the world he could not use such a DECREE OF NULLITY ad aa A CLOAK under which to continue the former relationship clandestinely the suggestion of the district attorney was dimply an illustration of one of the wa was s in likich the defendant could announce the fact of the separation unless the evidence was so glaringly insufficient that the jury could not convict on it the verdict should stand mr Raw raelius lius in his closing remarks said that because the defendant had haa pleaded guilty to an offense should have ave had bad no do weight with the jury on a subsequent aub sequent char charge the law left room for repentance he had been punished for his offense and that account was settled he promised to conform to the law and the law should encourage him to keep the promise the object of punishment was to obtain obedience to law aud and that object had been gained in this case the jury had no right to conjecture re that the defendants acts were a cloak to coyer cover something b i ag unlawful when there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE to justify that conjecture the jury were not permitted to take evidence that meant one thing and say eay that it meant the opposite if the prosecution had bad shown that there bad been masquerading under a cloak on the martof part of the defendant there might be roam tor for conviction but this had not been done As to the defendants visiting his children and going into the house at the back door dihe e evidence showed that that was the usual way of entrance for all who went there the proposition of the defense that mr arnold had not transcended his legal duty had not been controvert ed all of his visits had bad been open and above board the claim that the defend defendant could not complain if his bis acts did not satisfy the law was unjust the merel mere suspicion that there was something bidden was not sufficient to convict there was no evidence that Mr Arnold Aruold pi pretended pie tended to anybody on earth that he was not conf conforming arming to his agreement with the court in fact the contrary was shown beyond doubt the assertion that it was improper tor for the defendant to invite a lady not his wife to ogden was fully examined by the evidence and the defendant had bad proper business there the suspicions of the public were insufficient to te constitute guilt the mother of the defendants children was entitled ta U considerations which a woman ww who did not occupy that position was not entitled to bere rere there was no significance to this class of so actions eions i in n the light b of f reason when taken in connection with the th e circumstances shown THE MOTION OVERRULED the court in ruling afi the motion said that the principal reison reason given in asking forthe for the granting of the request ws W that the evidence was wae bumagat to auf juf justify tiby the verdict there was no controversy about cohabitation with the hillst wife b but the question was as ta t the cohabitation with fanny tahe the s second wite wile the bisue then was did the de fondant associate with faury fany under the semblance of marri marriage agell or did bid their association indicate to the world that it was as husband and aad wife the defendant had bad been married to fanny according to the forms of the church law a number of years ago he cohabited with her for considerable mine and several beveral chil children dreu were botn to them about a year before the indictment was found the defendant pleaded guilty to another indictment tor for a similar offense aud and promised to obey tile the law stating that he did not desire to do an anything thing more than care for and support his children he and his first wite wile lived in one part of town and the second wife in another part chehad he had been in the habit babit of vis ailing his plural wife sometimes with his son and sometimes alone tile the neighbors saw him passing in and out frequently he was there once a week weak mo more re or less he also TOOK DINNER WITH THE Intha in that bouse he had bad gone in and come out of the house late at n night ight when his child was sick on one occasion of this kind lie he stayed staged all ait u night ht he took look tae plural wite wile and his bis atil children out riding spa and also took her home from tile the theatre once and to ogden with him once at the latter place registered her name as i mrs arnold ainold their rooms were adjoining and were connected by a door in e explanation of these acts the defendant claims to 2 have bave visited his children his calls at night were when the children were sick and the driving out was for the benefit of the child the question was whether this was sufficient explanation of ibis his association with his plural wife lil in the light of pol polygamous alle marriage which existed the r result s it of their former association threw its effect over jover the whole proceedings ce and the inquiry arose what did people think of it the jury must have found that there was no reason tor for his frequent visits there was no excuse for nis his taking the plural wife to ogden and his actions there wew bew suspicious pi cious their rooms were connected by a door i HE LED HIMSELF INTO temptation I 1 there is no question of that the opp opportunity opportune y was so good be would have to h have ve been as good as josept joseph to have resisted the temptation this visit and others f furnished ur nish I 1 ed so many opportunities and tile the inclination disposition and to take advantage ot them as evidenced by the marriage originally were doubtless still with him he said in court that his promise to obey the law did not change his inclinations the jur jury aa doub doubtless thought the be old habits ana inclinations were still on him I 1 lam am not prepare to say the jury erred efred it was not necessary for kini him to do as he did if a |
