Show A VERO off OF 1 I 1 NO Q ANT i i i the trial of henrys helft grow on the charge ot of unlawful cohabitation was haq atter after the went tp 19 yesterday press i EMMA babaa ta testified lid aur tur ther 1 havo not tried aled to t avoid the process of 0 we toe churi i y because afelt icke i iii 1 was a Us art of 04 the time from september r VO to october tob r 1 I ashay when pal cers wy py house j r agrow I 1 arow only came to uy hause aben men were ng there be ha not been there torf fifine timp fiig when my brother truest braedt was waa there the but bu I 1 docot do abot know lor for liow how long at tuat mat time the defendant caged otere but apt to eee me lie a week li if he did lie he cameto insch to jet to his hia granddaughter and to see the work workmen meA I 1 did not see him all the time he be came saw turn voy very seldom bodow he has nat not stopped au night in taj the house honse during 1883 1881 or 1885 or since I 1 asui han to we agreed to separate parate ae in IBI 1881 I 1 have not mearim as a husband ince theu have wt ot passed the night jut with hip or sustained the relation ol 01 4 do 0 noli 4 know how often he calleo called during g we time named in the indictment it might elgh have been once a month I 1 that I 1 saw him that often ke he came during the OLY day time X denied my identity to the officers because jold not want to go court to mr richarl richards it in pui pursuance u ce 01 0 our agree agreement mei MT T T grow con eyed ea to mp me my home agreed to provide lor me and to finish the house which was not then completed I 1 have not sustained the relation rela tiou of wile wife tp im since nor regarded refard regarded ed blip as my husband to a mr dickson t remember when I 1 was subpoenaed 14 R J B youngs dungs cw case we made the agree agreement neat in the of 1882 because we had reason to believe the law would by eal enforced mr alc dackson son io do you know of mr grow ha bavine vine apy ap iOther wife iho bour self and juliam julla grow objected 0 bj doted to hy faw defense as aa immaterial overruled 4 by be court our k witness td mr bickson I 1 dont know of his haying any other wile wife maud grow recalled re called my oldest brother W is theodore lie he is isa a years uld old have heard itier iud and mother speak of their mark marriage igge i I 1 I 1 john IN RIBA pik im am acquainted quain ted with wath the dependant delen dant ap h married my wife wifel alster alser 1 I kanov julia M grow glow abaye v visited his hia house hoube but bat not aftel of te do doiren wat remember having sm seen him bim fie has been at 23 in my house bu bap I 1 do apt bow know the exact dales e mes jei aly 4 has 84 pr a 34 been at my house but n not it I 1 at t the salua saiu th that I 1 knowlt I 1 A enow lauw often either oje 01 t buein a came t we in three or six M baths 0 k perhaps er 0 mr dickon diwi asked jor for aa p johnc mrs I 1 elizabeth pike tested sa sarah bangs slater I 1 awed her frequently er hapa pape af Week pk I 1 and sae visited me r FOA seme timea called at my house holise isaev saw him at emiles ar ago have po not seen seeh him im ia p the house since but bastea ha bate seen him ard rund k I 1 it bated thereat the there reet embt oten years adeo to mt 1 eafie visited mv slater anth lo 10 the day time I 1 afi fa emma yun emily satah awik Is te vj I 1 emilet have gifted he I 1 times ft once a week sometimes sometime less have met mr grow ta there ere about ten years ago when I 1 lived there I 1 have reen him outside the house since then the court waited fifteen minutes for the arrIval ar riyal of one john C young whom mr dickson relied on as a witness und and who was around abband with deputies de u searching houses 1 As he did not come oe he district attorney submitted alfe tb e age case I 1 jrichard plenard jamesway james was the first witness mr for the defense Us he tes testified titled 1 I know the defendant I 1 work under his direction ave slept at the temple block and have known the defendant to sleep there a week at a time know of his sleeping there in 1888 1884 and 1885 he has been there often I 1 have bie gone there early in the mor morning ninga and nd found him in ia bed to mr dickson I 1 haw hoen working I 1 under argrow mr grow seven or eight years ago commented commenced steeping sleeping there a about out three or four years ago slept in his office in the carpenter shop on th the e temple block I 1 was there in case I 1 was needed partially part ally as a watchman do not know how bow otter otten Bave have spent twelve or burteen dighto there was there as a watchman that is I 1 was there for forcell forcall call la in case base of fire or something of that kind mr grow told me to stay stav there 1 I live in ia the twenty first ward my proper time for work is 7 am 1 1 I 1 have I 1 sometimes been needed at 4 am have watched part of the night very often I 1 do not know when coah commenced sleeping there he isay have stayed there iq in I 1 1882 2 I 1 dp do not kno know w how often do not kaow his fils OU business SIness ness there the defense defense rested rested i their case case mr dickson made the opening am ment to the jury that the object of the law was to the appearance ol 01 ac polygamous household I 1 I 1 lie he said there thare for i was noway no way a mark man but a keep entirely away from the home of his polygamous wife he should sever thera the relations lations he wanted a conviction on the evidence mr RI pharas requested the court to give the follow fol lowia bW instructions to the I 1 lury ury from the decision of the supreme court ot of the united S States ates le first you should find dolen defendant dant not guilty unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that during the period mentioned the defendant lived or dwelt with the women named as his wives to be guilty under the lathat law the i defendant must have cohabited with the women womac adt sota some p period 1 of time timea 86 mere isolated act is not sufficient lelent second the fact that the defendant visited the house of bia ble plural wife is not what the law lavy presumes unless you ou find therefore 6 that he actually cohabited habited with her lier in the relation of husband and wife you must fahd fib d him not guilty I 1 mr richards then addressed the jary he argued that the law did nor noc require and would not permit a rhe abman man to divorce his plural wife the claim of the district attorney that the relationship should be served was contrary to the jaw aw and to the rulings of the court the he prosecutor had bad come before the burya jury and ud tasked them to convict contrary arary t to 0 the be evidence of all the wi biti t nesses the testimony showed t that h a t neither element of the he offense of unlawful existed exl sted in the case and the defendant should be acquired auja qu ired an fn iff t n ux 9 d I 1 to eions alou abed by d defense ba e cli kiping they thet were er dot at aal applicable ca e I 1 to a thi bis dage case he edff dressed dihe jury ana ln aisted that a verdict of be rendered he said the offense is made up when a man hom holds out the relationship lation ship it is not necessary that the be holding out should be public or by words wards it if may be by conduct 11 and lei very every time he enters the doot door of ithe home of Ms his wife that conduct is sufficient i there was soth 12 to dhow the ahe neighbors that he bad entered the relationship the court charged the lury jury that lf if the defendant had a lawful wife and had a wife he visited visite dand and alsoc assoc associated with under circumstances was his bis wife they sh should otildA find him guilty the instructions asked asked by bythe the defense fise were pre 1 i at ats 4 y V th m the luvy ury retired retire and abd in fa teu ten returned idita a verdict ot of guilty bylott by louis Lout martin foreman sentence cwb wil be passed on march 1st ast ti ia i 1 |