Show 1 CAJU JUSTICE IN UTAH urah 1 THIC THE case of hen henry ry G GroA be placed on the long ions list 0 ar aces 1 in the prosecution of Mor 0 ons 0 jig bin n which the law has been perv perverted arted and verdict have been found in op opposition to the evidence in refusing to set asinethe asi aside dethe the verdict and grant a new trial in this case case might be learned from the remarks of the court to sustain our statement and when the of the trial are closely scanned it be evident to any reasonable and unprejudiced mind that ver may have been the relations between the defendant had and ther chief witness for the abe prosecution the evidence utterly failed to establish the charge against him it is admitted that the defendant has two wives but that is not the offence offense of which he was ac accused the charge was unlawful cohabitation 11 prosecution tor for polygamy was barred oy by the statute of limitations it was not denied that he had lived jived wives ato up to the passage 1 of the edmunds law there to is no present offence offense against the law la ia that but bat since sauce the passage of that law or during the time coveted covered by the indictment the defendant and his plural wife so the evidence showed had bad ceased the cohabitation which haa bad contin continued hed up to that time they agreed to this separation and th the e plural wits wite testified that it had bad been actual as a matter of fact A house was built for her which she owned and occupied the defendant it was shown had bad called at the house a dum number or times while it was being finished and repaired to give instructions to the wor workmen kimen find and after that to convey letters to his granddaughter grand daughter who lived with the plural wife but it was not shown that he bid had entered tile the dwelling had it was denied that bhat he had ever even sat down n it during the time mentioned in the indictment he bad been away from home chome a few nights during that period but that was accounted for by his sleeping in a bid bed which whick he occasionally occupied on the temple block where he be employed was what evide evidence Bew was there then to support the charpe not say any except his bis calls at the house where his plural wife resided forthe for the purposes x specified I 1 in the irea judge zanes zanea poA ponderous derous attempts to I 1 be e ion ny there was nothing criminal ia 1 the calls of mr grow if he be had been as old as the court wished to intimate nor if the plural wife were as young and attractive as the court pleased to portray the cou conducts conduct duct 1 at the defendant defends ht described in IA the evidence was not in any way a breach of the law buc the court ses to hav hauw imagined a great deal and the jury apt ay pear to baves bared in the surmising boother may have hare had similar suspicions but what is there in alt all that in the nature of proof sufficient to establish guilt the legal presumption seems to have been rover reversed pod in this case is as in id many others of a similar character the tact fact of tale he defeno defend ants previews relationship and bd present status as regards his wife aft taken as aft evidence against him while the law presumes that the intimacy previously existing ceased when it became unlawful for the purposes of the prosecution the presumption of his guilt t seems to have been taken eu instead ulf i t sad of the presumption of djs innocence in ia common j ustice justice and according to all lawful cri criminal procedure durer some pr proof bof of t the we de defendants guilt was nee necessary essm to his but it was not shown that he be had bad dwelt with the plural wife that thai he be had it alved ved with her in py any other sense than as all people ilive together tether hood who who inhabit the same neighbor neigh boc judge zane repeated ilie palpable absurdity whick which he be uttered py many months ago in order to make the term cohabitation stretch jA into unprecedented significance his argument is this thiis they were ere together ther they jived they lived together i bethey e they cohabited I 1 Is not thai abs an original decint tion of 61 the term cohabitation to be used in a zif criminal I 1 sense bense we VC onoto the following from his bis opinion mi printed in the organ which claims to 9 represent his honar and the court officials M generally we do this that our own report mely not be objected to as partial i continuous cohabitation need note not be proven with more thin than one apman for illustration a mariner who is sometimes away aay his biome home ter for and even years still cohabits with ath his wife i according to the rulings of the higher courts the holding out to the world more than one woman as an a wife was as much a vic violation latida of the law as the contin continuous udys living together as man and wife if a man by ins his actions or conduct or both both leads persons who observe and who are called to pass apon his conduct to believe that be is living in violation of the law this 19 constituted unlawful unlawful fal cohabits tick tica the supreme court of the united 8 tates states in its latest fating an on this question said I 1 the offense of cohabitation in the sense of this statute is committed I 1 it there is a living or dwelling together as husband or wife it is inherently continuous of fence having duration and not an aftuck offence conn consisting otan isolated act continuous cohabitation joust bl proved then or the offense offence ch charged 4 te biot not su substantiated we such pach cohabits alon on was shown in the grow ease case but bat the absence of it was to therefore the verdict was contrary to the evidence the judges ol 01 0 the mariner who I 1 is presumed ef ried to c cohabit with ith his bis wile t 81 our X frequent absent from fraim home forlong for no parallel in the present case the cohabitation can bo be presumed wit the legal wife only in id regard biard to nural the plural wife thel the legal egid is 0 the contrary and even in regard toab to the lawful wife if a sop separation had bad been awed agreed p upon and bere there was po positive 41 testimony te that t h at the agreement had been carried out the would be sif set aside it is not true thit that the higher have the holding 0 out to the world more than one woman AO as a wife was as much a violat violation wat 0 of t the he law W aa the continuous living together as mall maa and wife there ano la no sq such h offense to known to the law as holding out to the world more than one woman as a wife polygamy consists consist 4 of mar eying more than one unlawful cobb cohabitation 11 of a continuous living livin g or dwelling in to together rettig wil with A kopd more than one holding 0 in out alone is not made crini criminal il by law and io no bighor codr courts to 11 have said that it is ip A man may he franchised disfranchised dis because he be is il a bigamist bi gamis or polygamist bu he can cannot be prosecuted for maintaining that status alone 80 the supreme court of the united states ruled rd in the cases cabes against the utah commission th the court said dist disfranchisement is IA not prescribed as a penalty for being guilty of the crime and offence offense of bi bigamy my or polygamy r for as has been as said rd that offence offense consists in the act of unlawful war mar ariage and a pr ise 11 fis n against the offen deris barred by the lapse laps elot of three years by section 1044 of the revised Sta statutes tates continuing to in that state afterwards is not an orence fence of v though cohabitation with more akore 7 abatt one woman is but as one may he be 10 1 living in a bigamous or pol polygamous mow state without cohabitation with more than on oae woman he is is in that mat SIMM saw a bigamist or polygamist and yet guilty of no clita criminal inal i of p fence am 11 1 it appa appears that judge zane and the supreme q 14 co art of the united states differ C la their decisions on this thip polo point L and as the way seems tabe to be blocked at rena present to make the rulings of the g higher court of due effect on the utah tribunals the unfortunate victims to indicia absurdities and distortions will have p 0 o bear their fate ate as best beat they maya may a remedy can caa be obtained the last clause in the paragraph gaivenas given as judge zanes interprets inter interpretation preta tion of the law is as fallacious as an those that precede it if the belief of audi vl vi duals who may be grossly prejudiced as to A a mans conduct is to be taken as conclusive evidence of his violation of law what security has any person hov however aver hipo cent against conviction and punishment beut it is a monstrous and ridiculous doctrine it puts impressions and opinions in the place of proof but ills it is the kind of justice that has been served up in id federal courts in this territory it is dog erry law and what Is known in rural V england as justices Ju justice itice 11 it at may 01 be pla placed cedon on a par with ith the rulings wh which eh tri penalties that the the law made siD gle and add injected ae legislation Islat ids into I 1 judicial Is decisions ridge judge zane has made some of the most contradictory definitions of aun unlawful cohabitation that chat are possible to sophistry and verbal jugglery and SUCH as are arc entirely novel in the history of criminal jurisprudence to place them side alde by side without comment would be engage to excite the risibility of the most sedate they would act in the place ot a farce were their effects not so they are something inore more than thao laughable only because they area are a b blast 1 t upon on nappy happy homes a scourge to men who try in honor to observe a cruel and string ept jit law and a snare to the unwary and simpleminded simple aimle minded and they remain as of force aud and effect simply because every possible means diesu that can be devised are are placed in tae way to prevent revision revisit by a competent tri gunal may many ON of biff lir decisions are sut suf erroneous but when they are explained in herf peculiar style of reasoning they provoke as MP muc hilarity as astonishment and alag disgust |