Show THE REMAINING SNOW APPEAL CASES ox ON saturday evening the two remaining snow cases were disposed of in the supreme court of the territory the decision of the lower court being in each case affirmed judge powers wave crave the opinion affirming his own decision in the case for IM 1883 and judge DORM boreman delivered a similar opinion in the case for 1884 chief justice zane dissented on some points from both decisions thus but two of the i judges sustained the rulings of the lo 10 lower w er court and one of them was the judge that issued it that is the kind hind of justice which is dealt out in utah anata spectacle tor for courts and lawyers and the public generally was orlabdo W powers as an appellate judge giving to the world his decision in support of his rulings as a district judge I 1 nearly a third of the long opinion we have not space to insert today is occupied with a dissertation on polygamy snowing that it has been a punishable offense in england and the various states for mant many years but this does not touch the question at bar the charge against apostle lomenzo was not polygamy he was convicted in opposition to the evidence of unlawful cohabitation other large portions ot of the opinion are quotations from other opinions on points that do not touch the main question but when that is reached the tergiversation paltry shifts ts and ana shallow subterfuges to which the judge resorts are enough to make even a police court lawyer blush tor for shame of him tife the defendant was was accused of cohabiting ha biting with more than one women as his wives the evidence showed conclusively that he had only cohabited with one judge powers cliar clareed aeo the jury that cohabitation wita the ti wife was to be presumed and as cohabitation with a plural wife was admitted the defendant was convicted but the evidence adduced was positive that he had in fact not cohabited with the legal wife during the time named in the indictment that he be had not ate lived slept or stayed staved with her under the same roof there was not any evidence that he had bad even visited her during that period how to vet get over the evidence and call that cohabitation which had none none of its elements in order to sustain his own ruling was the task that judge powers had before him he tackled it without hesitation and here is the kind of logic he be used in his opinion must a man take his bis meals with his bis wife to be living with her must they be under tile the same roof if so what becomes of the large class of commercial men who pass but few days clays at home during the whole year must a man pass a certain number of days and nights with his wife in older to be considered as livin living with her certainly not As the hg husband bd goes about his daily avocation he is living with his wife when he rides with her or talks with her when he visits her he is living with her if he sees her daily or but a few times a year he is living her if there has been no legal se separation aratoon or divorce whether one roof shelters them or not if he holds her out to the world as a wite wile supports her and recognizes her as a wife they are living together it is a presumption that is conclusive band and is founded upon reasons of public policy was ever such prostitution of language and reason ever witnessed on the judicial bench btuch before on that reasoning every man in salt SaIt lake city is cohabiting with every woman of his acquaintance in salt lake city when a husband who cohabits with his wife returns from a journey no matter how long the separation does he not dwell with her under the same roof if absent ever so often when he comes back does he not live with nis wife in another sense than merely recognizing her as such and if the husband lived in the same town and neighborhood and it was known that he never ate or slept under the same roof with his hs wife would it not be said and that properly that their cohabitation had ceased and though cohabitation might be legally presumed I 1 would uit not evidence to the contrary s set et aside that presumption stamp upon it and make it legally defunct Accord according inix to judge powers cohabitation between man and wife while he be provides lor for her can never cease without death or divorce did he never hear ot of a suit of the wife against the husband for the restitution of conjugal r rights 1 lits one of which was cohabitation have not men who have separated from their wives though living in the same town and supporting them been sued at law to compel cohabitation on judge powers theory a man may live lavein in england and his wife in america having iffie m mutually u nally agreed to live apart apar a and nd it if he s supports her and acknowledges d g e she is ig his wife though they may never dwell under the same roof they are all the time cohabiting read bead the latter part of the above quotation and see it if that is not its doctrine and that is the kind of stuff dealt out from the supreme bench of utah as law I 1 no wonder there are so many members of the bar who speak mank with wit such contempt of the judicial abilities of orlando W powers and he tells us f urther further that this presumption ou on which he be bases his argument is conclusive clu sive whoever who ever heard before of a conclusive presumption anat was in defiance of positive proof B but ut he argues that the construction of the edmunds law held by the defendant would allow a man to nil jill a house with plural wives and himself live in another house he can hold them out to the world as his wives support them visit them and because they do not physically dwell or live together he would go free verty certainly and why not that la is the doctrine of the third district court aad of the supreme court of the united states it if a man had any number of wives before the passage of the edmunds law and since then he has not physically dwelt or lived with them I 1 he does not cohabit with them and therefore tha he cannot be legally or rationally convicted of violating the law with them if a man can cohabit or live with woman without doing so physically we would like some legal luminary like judge powers to show us how it is done clone if a man does not physically live with a woman he does not live with her at all iu in any sense that is taken cognizance of by the law or any other power in this world what does juda judge powers expect a man to do with his wives ives it if he k keeps e eps tile the law and performs his moral d duty uty to say nothing of nis religious ob obligations ii I 1 to them does he want him to eat them or cease to provide anything for them to eat supporting and acknowledging them seem in hi his s eyes eves to constitute the e essence of the crime he quotes several authorities to justify a construction of the law different different from its letter and the plain meaning of a given section une one of these nas has this sentence when la in a particular construction of a statute applied to a case which it seems by its terms to include there folio follows ws from such construction an absurd consequence respect for the legislature will induce the court from thence to conclude that some other construction which will not produce such a consequence ought to be adopted hence in any construction which leads to an absurdity ought to be rejected well following this principle should not his own construction of the law be rejected what could be more absurd than his construction of the term unlawful cohabitation in the edmunds law he rules that a man cohabits with his le legal al wife if he never cohabits with her ithac that he lives with her if he recognizes and supports her thou though h he never lives under the same roof with her that if it is proved beyond question that a man lives with only one woman if he has a legal wife living whom he never lives with ho he lives with two but judge powers goes still f urther further in his deter determination determinate on to have his own ruling sustained and after stating some of the facts in regard to the case he returns to his presumption ana and declares that the strong presumption of cohabitation which arises from the simple fact of lawful marriage becomes con cannot be rebutted 1 Is not this new doctrine for the bar of utah did they ever hear before of a presumption that cannot be rebutted did they ever hear bear of a presumption that is to be regarded as no matter now how may be the proofs in rebuttal the simple fact of lawful marriage is to be regarded as establishing the cohabitation although the evi evidence derce shows it does not exist does not this one little jurist combine all the powers of the great legal authorities of either hemisphere and put blackstone and coke storey and marshall into the shades of everlasting insignificance ance |