Show BEFORE JUDGE ZANE proceedings in the third district court in the trial of william S muir of bountiful in the third district court yesterday afternoon miss lillie liilie muir a daughter dau liter of the defendant was subjected to an exceedingly rigid examination by district attorney peters while she was on the witness stand she was closely pressied pressed in regard to some statement which the attorney said she had bad made on a former heating hearing mr peters inquired as to whether she bad not made the remark and she replied with some spirit you SCARED ME into saying that in the grand jury jary room but goa you cant do ethere it bere 11 at ac the conclusion of the argument in the case the ury jury retired and at about pm returned a verdict of not guilty it was generally supposed that the disposal of the muir case in the way it had gone would causette cau sethe dismissal of the indictment charging lucy darke muir plural wife with fornication ni and the matter was considerably talked of in that line the verdict of acquittal in mr muirs mairs case wasl upheld because a conviction on OD such flimsy evidence would furnish a dangerous precedent in cases where the defendants were not mormons cormons Mor mons and because the defendant had already suffered one term of imprisonment and aad the sentiment in favor of punishing him again was not very strong when the district attorney announced that the case against LUCY morn would be proceeded edW with it ii caused unusual interest in some quarters and it was urged that there was something at the back ol of it which would develop later on in the trial which closed this forenoon A jury was im paneled and the prosecution offered in evidence the testimony given by the lady in the trial of her husband on the charge of unlawful cohabitation this evidence the prosecution se considered as admissions which would tead to convict the defendant of the offense charged her counsel co unset objected and le grand young made an extended argument claiming that tha t the testimony which it was sought song h t to introduce was obtained through th the e compulsion of the court and as th the e law stated a person could not be compelled to testify against himself the testimony moly should be excluded it was unjust t to 0 claim that it was a voluntary act for the defendant to testify against her kus husband band when it was well known ta that atlee she did so only because compelled to even though she did not actually object in court the court bad not informed her of her to ref refute use on any ground and ft be A MANIFEST INJUSTICE and contrary to t the spit spirit it of the law to prosecution to carry out its ts intentions in the present instance mr peters argued that the defendant had bad not been compelled to testify io in the case against mr muir and the statements she made there as a witness for the government could be used agai against jost her she had bad not claimed the of the court at the time she ahe was called and therefore could oot not subsequently avail herself of that protection mr young remarked that such a construction st of the matter was a satire on justice the court ruled that the statements made by the lady as a witness against her husband were not gevea under caution that she was not required to testify to matters that might oe be used against her subsequently the general rule is that a witness who voluntarily maxes makes statements criminating film self may be confronted by the same at his bis trial it the witness at the time the statements were made is under the belief that it was his duty to answer it CANNOT BE SAID the statements are voluntary there is no do alf difference ference whether or not the witness is under indictment except that when there is no charge the witness would be less on his bis guard in ID this case the witness is a woman and reason reasonable aole persons cannot ignore leaor the fact that women are not as well acquainted quain ted with the law as men she was not advised of her privilege of refusing fusinato to testify there was wasa a doubt in the case and the court in its judicial capacity could not take advantage of a woman in this case she wa was s required to attend and be sworn as a witness and to testify under the circumstances it being apparent that she was not informed of her rights IT WOULD BE IMPROPER to te we use her testimony given in the former case against alanl lt heron her on the present occasion alfh the 0 object ionis sustained mr peters then took a new tack and called wm win S muir as a witness he testified I 1 live in west bountiful f ull davis county mr young ung asked the court to instruct the witness that he might decline to testify tor for certain reasons mr peters thought the witness did not need instruction the court however tho thought u differently and informed the witness of his privilege mr peters asked the witness further questions and mr muir testified I 1 went to england in march 1887 dont know whether I 1 am married or not mr peters when were you first married mr muir I 1 dont eldont want to answer your questions because I 1 think you WANT TO ME ag again wn you want to get me back into the pen again and ive just had six months there mr peters warmly I 1 want an answer mr muir I 1 wont answer mr peters are you willing to swear that in your judgment your testimony mi might ht tend to criminate you T mr muir I 1 am mr peters insisted on en the questions until the court checked him by saying that advantage might be taken of the witness statements in further proceedings ce edings against him mr peters still insisted and the court informed him that the fact ot of a marciale mar marriage niale being proved was a circumstance in na a similar proceeding to one that had bad already been had against the defendant the witness has a right to decline the witness was interrogated further and declined to answer saying s you have threatened to prosecute me if you could I 1 YOU threatened right here iu in this room to criminate me you want to get we me in a maze in a ze and catch me I 1 am so no lawyer I 1 refuse on that ground the court asked the witness whether he be meant to say that his an ewers might tend to cn binate binate himself and received an affirmative re reply mr peters petera repeated his bis que quasion Sion to the witness court he has stated that his re fosdi fasal to answer is oo on the that his bis statements might tend to criminate himself mr peters he has been acquitted ot of the charge I 1 court that does not nob cover all time more questions form a basis for another prosecution mr peters to witness you make your answer oath mr air muir yes sir at this the prosecution rested for the defense clerk john M Z me lue was sworn and identified the record of the trial and acquittal of wm 8 muir of the charge of adultery the court said this evidence was unnecessary and brought the proceed ings to a close by instructing the jury to acquit the delen defendant dant A verdict of not guilty was rendered without the jurors leaving the box williami WILLIA WILLIAM mi BROWN of bountiful davis county was called and on coming forward was arraigned on an indictment for unlawful cohabitation to which he pleaded guilty le grand young stated that the defendant was suffering ering from diabetes testified to by dr taggart he was seventy two years of age and in no condition to go to prison the proper place for him bin under present circumstances was in bed he therefore requested that in passing judgment only a fine be imposed toe ane court then inquired as to the ability of mr brown to pay a tine fine and said that in view of his bis condition his plea of guilty and his advanced age no imprisonment would be inflicted buta but a tine fine of and costs would be required JOHN K R BARNES of kaysville Kays ville was next called to answer to a charge of unlawful coba cohabitation bim when the court inquired it if the parties were prepared to proceed judge powers arose and sa said yes sir weare we are ready the appear appearance ancl of the ex judge in this capacity caused the court to exola exclaim lm with evident sur prise oh you represent him do you the names of deputies pratt franks and cannon were called as witnesses mr peters stated that mr barnes wives had been placed under bonds but bad failed to appear judge powers replied that the district attorney was iu in erro err orand raud that no wives had bad been placed under bonds or even subpoenaed mr peters insisted thal he be was right and started out to find the bonds out but was unable to do so at his bis request the casenas cas ewaa set for trial after the next one on the calendar and deputies were started tor for Kays maysville kaysville ville forthwith was next called up on the charge of adultery and took his seat beside mr varian his coun counsel bel on the other side sat mr mcvicker brother of the doctors former wife for the pose cution cation mr dickson was associated with mr peters abe he rames of the witnesses rose Thach rah mrs bredemeyer and emma bapty were called rose Thack rad was not present and as ala attachment was issued issue d tor for her emma bapty the girl whom the offense Is alleged to tn have been committed with to is about fifteen years of age and looks even younger than that she gave birth to a child about new years and says dr bredemeyer is its lather father after waiting some time for mrs to be brought in the court took a recess till this afternoon when trie the trial was proceeded with with closed doors OTHER NOTES B B quinn was admitted to citizenship ane witnesses for the defense in the grand r nd larceny case against C B gillette fe lt e were ordered subpoenaed at the expense of the territory the defendant having no means to secure their attendance in the case of john T sweeney ini dieter dieted lor for murder in the first degree in connection with neal mulloy the murderer of G J hughes the court appointed 0 W powers as counsellor the defense mr powers said the defendant wanted arthur brown but on it being shown that mr brown bad once refused to take the case the change was not made |