Show THIRD DISTRICT COURT CASE OF S H B SMITH IN PROGRESS NO BUT TUB THIS VERDICT IS JUST THE SAME our report of 0 yesterdays proceedings in the third district court bourt closed with eight persons hav having I 1 ag been selected as jurymen juryman for the case of S H B smith and the issuance of a special venire for 30 more names from which to complete the panel after court was opened this morning a call was made for I 1 W 11 remington 46 josepa B R morgan 92 52 moroni gillespie and 4 wm win A crabtree all of whom responded W H remington did not believe it right for a man to have more than one wife and was passed morgan gillespie and crabtree believed in plural marriage and were excused I 1 mr remington in a general way had formed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused it would require evidence to remove that e opinion anlon if a man was arrested charged charged with crime be would conclude he be was guilty but would be guided lay by evidence challenged by defense to mr dickson believed all ail ac accused of unlawful cohabitation to be guilty cout court you had better stand aside the following named and numbered were then called for 50 isaac A ewery enery 41 H N greene F H bemis and 29 george M scott mr emery was excused for his belief 11 N Gree neof the firm of Kno knowlden wIden greene real estate agents did not believe in plural mairia marriage e nor d did id F H bemis or george bf scott who followed mr greene had no bias against the defendant was friendly with him knew some of the facts in the case and had formed an unqualified opinion challenged and excused F H benais bemis was a miner he knew nothing of the case and had no opinion ion or prejudice would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt the law allowed him geo M X scott had formed no opinion from what lie he bud bad read had no bias in this class of cases nor against the defendant had bad a bias against the crime as compared with other offenses thought it would not require less evia evidence ence to convict in these cases than in others there was a presumption of guilt in this class of cases which it would require evidence to overcome anallen ed by defense to mr dickson alad a general ful prejudice re judice against the offense of unlawful cohabitation thought lie he could iv the a fair trial unal LI renae denied by the prosecution the court overruled the challenge and th juror was accepted mr Rawlins said the defense desired to exercise their peremptory challenges and objected to any more jurors being sworn until the panel war wa lull full the court overruled the objection bemis and scott were then thea sworn two others 36 edwin pettit and 63 john M young were called mr pettit wis was excused for his bis belief john M X young did not believe in plural marriage but would not be as zealous in prosecuting this class of cases as others excused next came stanley H clawson and 92 joseph A peek peck both of whom were excused for their belief as were also 58 zadoc mitchell and wm galbraith for the same reason the next called were 81 bolivar roberts and 79 J J greenwald bolivar roberts would be as zal zealous ofis in punishing those entering the relation of plural marriage subsequent to 1862 as other offenses but not DOL against those married prior to thai date challenged by the prosecution to mr rawlins kahlias had no bias for or against the defendant would determine the case on the evidence and would not require any more evidence than in ordinary cases would convict if the evid evidence enec justified it would be with the law to mr dickson if it transpired that the defendant married his wives before 1862 ne lie would have sympathy for him would biake makeup up his mind from the law and evidence would require positive evidence in any case would act with impartiality juror accepted JJ J J greenwald was satisfactory to the prosecution he had no prejudice in the case and was passed by the defendant fen dant I 1 the defense challenged mr scott peremptorily toe the challenge was overruled and au exception taken the panel being completed the clerk read the indictment ut charging S H R B smith with violating the edmunds law by cohabiting wita mary smith and julia winter smith as his wives samuel B smith was the first witness tor for the prosecution ho he was son of the defendant in ia this case his mothers name was wary mary CS C smith inith she lived in the ward witness also bigo lived there knew julia winter had five brothers and sisters they all lived at home and addressed defendant as father and mrs marv smith as mother his mother was recognized as defendants wife and lived with her as such a number numb er of years ago julia winter lived in the house house she lived there up to shortly the passage of the edmunds law left in the spring or early curly par ot summer his bis father owned a farm where julia winter went to lp live she had bad t two w 0 children then both small there we were re eight rooms in the tenth ward house julia occupied the up stairs she took meals with the rest of the family the defense objected to this testimony the objection was overruled witness had seen julia winter with her children atthe at the table also hired girls and hired men did not remember julias eldest child calling defendant father never heard defendant say julias children were his she was known as julia never heard beard her called mrs smith did not know why she moved away defendant andrit and witness helped wove her away did not remember who directed the moving heard defendant say after the passage of the edmunds hill he would have to move julia away julia had bad a third child which defendant said just came in time to be legitimate did not remember the exact exact conversation witness remembered testifying before the grand jury last saw julia winter before commissioner mckay she was then living ou on the farm she had lived in the ward a part of the time prior to that saw julia J ulla at mckays office a few weeks before the finding of the indictment but had bad not seen been tier since and did not know where she was the house at the farn farm was empty had bad seen defendant working on the farm they would go down in the morning and sometimes stay all day had bad never seen defendant in the house while julia winter lived there did did not know of anyone else living with julia winter never saw or heard of a fourth child of julias james smith was called but not being present daniel H snarr took the stand he was wad acquainted with julia winter last saw her ber 17 or 18 years ago never saw ner while she lived at rr mr smiths house salina winter was sworn she was julia winters sister lost last saw her in may not heard of or seen her ber since prior to may 1885 1883 her sater lived in defendants I 1 at the farm in the second ward she had also lived in the ward where witness visited her saw mr smith in Jull jullia alti rooms visited once or twice a year saw mr smith there in the evening he julia she iad had two children when in the tac loth ward the eldest child had spoken to mr smith did not hear it edit call him father heard mr smith say i ay the children were his him had heard julia mrs MM smith outside of the house did not henr bear julia say sav mr smita was her husband hui baud had saen bc en mr smith caress the children and had bad seen been J julia tilia take with the family and almonr had seen been defendant take meals with her sister apart from the family julia moved to the ad ward about four years ao ago she moved to toe the alth ward tor for abbout a year yea rIshe she had four children last saw her early in 1885 the fourth child was then young the defense objected to the testimony as immaterial this court having so ruled the ithe court had bad also discharged one accused oft unlawful cohabitation on the ground that sexual intercourse was immaterial mr dickson Dick tion contended that in that case ames there was shown only oaly three or four acts of illicit intercourse and the birth of a child in the case at bar a different condition was shown to exit mr rawlins argued that the prosecution cution had offered no evidence that during the period named in the indictment the defendant and julia winter had lived together in fact their testimony was to the contrary and the testimony now sought sough tto to be introduced was immaterial the court bad ruled that it was the living together in the habit and repute of marriage that constituted the offense the court overruled the objection the defense objected on the further ground that there was no evidence tend tending lug to show association between the defendant and julia winter as husband and wife mr dickson said he proposed to show this association and the witness continued this thim fourth child was a boy three or four mouths months old the third child was between two and three years old then the children went by the family name of smith did not know the name of the youngest oun gest witness had seen mr smia smith at the house in the firm farm in the daytime saw him with the fourth child whom he recognized a as q his met mr smith at meals meals in the ward on only one oc occasion caslow witness did not visit very often met mr smith there almost as often as she went saw him twice after the fourth child was born never saw the child in his bis arms cross examined by mr rawlins was on friendly relations with julia winter Winte rhad had lived in the fifth ward all her life when she visited her sister first she stayed all night but did not see defendant there when she did see him he was at work in the lot had also seen him in the house in the day time he went away before witness did he was there at work when he sot got th through ough work wark he went away he took dinner with her sister ILL ia the summer of 1885 15 in the seventeenth ward had aad conversations with the defendant regarding the children including the youngest lattwin last winter it was when defendant visited there julia was not present defendant called the child his they were talking about belna being arrested for eo co habitation hibi bibi tation she said she would testily testify if called on and he told her the youngest child was his witness had not always been on friendly terms with defendant fenda fen dant at had nothing against him now dow james S smith it h was again called for he had bad not been subpoenaed but the defendant said the witness had promised to be present he was however not to be found anen court convened this afternoon james M smith was called but knew very little of the case U S marshal E A ireland testified that he had received a subpoena I 1 for julia winter he served and returned it attachment an was issued and an attempt made to serve it upon her without success collin colln had the matter in hand had never been able to find the witness the rhe prosecution rested their case I 1 mrs mary smith was sworn for the d defense she was the wife of the defendant fen dant was acau acquainted anted with julia winter had lived in the ward 15 years julia had lived there until may 1 1882 she then went to the 2nd and ward and had bad not returned since all the time since that date defendant defendant had lived in the ward with witness julia left the house because the defendant intended to comply with the edmunds law to mr dickson defendant had lived with her continuously continuously any since ince may 1882 every day and very every nl night ait was always there except when at work he stayed all night she left him in bed at night and found him there in the morning he was not away a tingle single night he slept at home every night except once when he went out into the country on business did riot not know of his taking meals anywhere else than at home he might have taken elsewhere had conversed with her hus husband banti several times about the chaise against ins him bad not ot given or received any advice had bad not talked with halil of his bis relations with julia winter had not talked of the younge youngest bt chilli chil 1 d this was all of thees for the defense and mr dickson addressed the ury he argued that for a number of jears years prior to the passage of the edmunds i ill the defendant lived in one linuse with his wife and with julia winter in the apparent relation of husband hu hand and wife the defend defendant ant theu then moved julia away with the ostensible te purpose of conforming to the law w when hen sue had moved mr smith was several times seen in her house another achl ld was born which sallu salina a had testified the defend defendant an t claimed as hie hi legrande young followed for the defense there was no attempt to deny the fact that Julla Winter ter was the defendants plural wife when the ed munds law passed the evidence dence showed she had been moved sway away the law did not say he should not support her and provide her a home which he did it had been st shown that he pursued a course to conform to the law there had been no flaunting to the world of the demea bomell y named as wives mr rawlins kawlins for the defense read from the decision of the supreme court of the united states on the def as anition of cohabitation he then made a short argument hol holding d ing that when ever a man was atres arrested ed it was int proper because of po popular ular prejudice akoneto al oneto convict him without w phout evidence the man who conformed to the law would under such circumstances be v just as liable as the one who did not the example of the defendant was V contrary to that condemned b by the law the speaker bantel wanted ibi the guilty convicted and the innocent acquitted the defendant in Vs this case had done all the law could re quire of him under the circumstances he had not since the passage of the law introduced or acknowledged julia winter as his wife nor had tie he turned her out into the street but ha had provided her and his children with ith ft a home as was his bis duty I 1 mr dickson contended that the defendant was of a class of people who were banded together to defeat the laws of the united stat state which were obnoxious to them and which they were taught to disregard this case was different to oth others era tried ad in an ingenious defense b being ein made do the defendant had enjo enjoyed e d marital ST privileges but had not welt dwelt under the same root roof in this comment community disregard of the law was da daily U sal and hourly preached and the jury should be zealous in enior enforcing tha law the defense set up could coul not be permitted to avail this defendant julia winter had been known as defendants fend ants wife he moved her away when the edmunds law passed but a child had been begotten since and a verdict of not gouty gallt would nullity nullify the law it if this was a allowed owed a man ral might lit have 80 wives and yet escape punishment pun M in this case both women were rearing children sad and that was all that was necessary to complete the offense 0 the court then charged the jury who retired at p in in half an hour the jury jur p returned with a verdict of guilty |