| Show OGDEN TRIAL 0 as F LORIN FARR the court met tuesday morning at mark lindsay was arraigned on a three count indictment charging him with violating the edmunds law in a as socia ting himself with emma munn as alleged an plural wife his bleg legal al wile wife being yet living and not divorced he demanded a copy of the indictment which was given him and he took the statutory time to plead the f following ol lowing jurors were then sworn to try the case ot of the UNITED STATES VS LORIN FARR indicted indic tAl td under he 3rd ard section ol of the edmunds Edmand slaw jaw relating to bigamy bigam y and polygamy the charge against mr farr is Is unlawful ul cohabitation john Stand standing ipg mark fletcher letcher IT john allen alien jesse vanderhoof thos 01 0 win beritan temple C A eklund wm win studer john jay jos wood jonathan pull pullam lill nm mr bierbower Bler bower I 1 abed case cas to the jury n aw www 10 1 said there were fl five 5 con C counts in the indictment fry i that 4 49 he e said there was one count for each wife as the defendant is said to have held them all out oat to the world as hie harf wives sald sal q however that the first copet might possibly be I 1 thrown n out as there seems TO 0 1 b an error in the time tate error was wap an oversight jamr in mr hiles ellesin Hl lesin in dr drawing up the in ia mr J N kimball for the defense nse moved the court to throw out the first count his honor took it under advisement vi counsel then moved that tha as there is only one punishment provided for the crime of unlawful cohabitation that the prosecution elect chichi county they wili proceed sed with and thus all except that one d e thrown ou opt so as to prevents prevent 1 segregation atter after some discussion the motion was overruled land gand the trial was proceeded with the court and counsel considered this a very important case and all the witnesses except the one on the stand were excluded from the court room the c counsel for the defense were jas N Kin kimball iball Es esq and hous hons P 11 II emerson and S K thurmal Thur mau the latter gentl I 1 I 1 orpo hisser vb 1 THE FIRST VI winess T a sworn avias was nancy 0 aari farr gibe 11 being I 1 ng the legal wife the defense objected to her being sworn but ic was overruled she said she was married to the defendant january 1st ast 1845 and that her husband had bad not been previously married that was all ann jones farr was wa s the next witness she knew kaew de f and ad way was marri married to b him qi 35 30 yf cars aio he e was wag marri married tope arr pl previous 1 a ta his marre marriage to witness it issi sa ati least ast she supposed ile he was bu but t could d n not 0 t say of heg be own knowle knowledge el mary ingham and nicholine Nic boline farr were reported d to be his wives also she understood they were all married to him at salt lake city but could not tell when defendant had provided for her support but they hid not live lived to sether as husband aad wife for a past ast but there had been no divorce g between them A great deal of time was heye take taken ap in discussions by the po cutie p naman on ous app apparently ent lyate irrelevant vu t q quest ioDia to time tim pt f 1 V V together her ec caaMa 4 the deg defense se i berf 0 object 1 P 8 witness h had ad bev seven e n children hv de oldest of which was 33 and the younge youngest yonn gest st nearly 21 years year of age she now resided resit ted n a 4 farm 90 0 AW miles freiri arod Y 8 she he kaew not now 0 mr parr lived with his wives prior to 1880 tiey they each had children witness had seven nancy C 11 shrah sarah nine mary 3 8 nie jiuei 6 making 36 ta in all aney all lived near to each other by tae old homestead nancy s still till lives there but the others live at different distances and separately SACS BACH OTHER defendant had visit visited id the farm where witness lives several times OB bit business sine since the of june last but did not stay wit but a short time has never rel remained there over night sometimes when about meal hour if he was there the boys would invite him to go go into the house and eat with them thed sometimes he complied counsel asked witness if she recognized the defendant as her husband now defense use and was was sustained nd by the court witness said the youngest child of defendant was about 18 years old it was the daughter of nicolene Nicol lne mr farr addresses ad dresse witness dy by her given name and not as mrs farr they never go out together nor do tb they ey meet each other at any given place alic e in 1583 she went east to visit some of her friends mr farr also alio went on the same train to visit some of his bis friends and on business his daughter was with her at the time she stayed with her friends and defendant stayed with hist hia rabe was gone about five weeks mr kimball moved to strike out the statement in relation to this visit on the ground that it was over three years ago overruled ar her friends lende tr the witness said lived in tand defendants f friends lived inNer in vermont innermost mout shepard she paid her own expenses on the trip and on arriving at her destination mr parr farr and daughter left her and went forward to his destination he did not visit her friends during their absence on cross examination she said for a number of years she had maintained her own household and her boys worked for defendant previous to the passage pabs aae of the edmunds law jaw the defendant told her they would in the event of its passage have to alter their mode of hying and that it must be in consonance with that law and that they agreed to do so 80 in fact the witness and defendant had CEASED TO LIVE TOGETHER as husband and wife for fer some years previous to the passage of the law witness further stated that mr farr is reputed to have lived exclusively with the first or legal wife as such since the passage of the edmunds law till the present time this witness was kept on the stand all morning and underwent underwear a searching examination by the prosecution but her first statements were not shaken abe said her claim to be a wife of mr farr is founded on the fact that she was married to him many years ago and she supposed the claims of the other ladies are similarly founded he has never repudiated witness as ai his w e wi iv I v b the time of the saig gype f the eedmunds edmunds liw law he be arrau arranged ged to not alve v with ith her in the future as III his wife with note none others khew except the first or legal wife the examination continued till 1240 p m when recess was taken 2 be ho hnyp appointed court courtway cour was a aaen 9 inep opened ened and the grand jury filed into t court aid through thear foreman maik presented seve several tal Indic teits which however did not reach the atle reporters the inquisitors inqui then returned to their q quarters u arters and the petit jury again took ali their air seats OTHER MATTERS k robert stenett after being put through a catechism and answering and promising without j wefa re reservation to obey all itle YI i laws aws aau it it necess necessary ao to fight for lor I 1 new nev country aks was made a lull full aged enen of bf the united states timothy parkinson Parkin soa who had been convicted on his own confession of unlawful cohabitation was called on tu to stand up ap 11 in reply to the questions ef eftie the court he said he had no promises to make for the future he was sentenced tene ed to six months in the penitentiary and pay a fine of one hundred d do eel arsand rs nd spud stand committed until the 11 nafis p pid ij id r IA y y THE ara ABU TRIAL acko er with erickson tarr farr wai was called to the witness stand she said she was married to defendant at salt like lake city in 1857 prior to 1880 she she does now in ogden Cit yand mr farr lived at the old homestead some five or six years ago the relations of and wife ceased between herself and defendant but bat t they had bad never been di 1 forced arced when they Y were marad married in 57 it ili was waa forever A her yo youngest gest child widis la 18 years of jike age defendant had bad not lived under the same root roof w with ith witness for about 6 years although he he has sometimes some tims called to see the ch children 1 aed d to see their son on business they are on friendly terms and he helps to provi defor delfor heri hert children but he never makes a special vi isee see witness Wh enthey meet I 1 she treats him as alfriend aj friend heu he had abt ahille her a visit in 1884 her sons name is elijah and he be has charge of a st store orein in this city which be belongs angs to defendant odd add whee he ca called ax at her house hobs it W was asee tia see elijah I 1 and ove give hini him iusti relative to the conduct of tho basi ess ou on cross examination she said frior prior to the passage of the edmunds law defendant frequently occupied a room lu in her house aud and slept there but at ana sig ce passage th each con I 1 k jr IF I 1 |
