| Show BENNETT ACQUITTED the case of the people vs wm B bennett of west jordan was brought up for trial in the third district court oct 28 lu in this case the defendant is accused of illegal registration ile he formerly had two wives but some time in 1888 his plural wife obtained a church divorce 11 he was tried for unlawful cohabitation and was acquitted in may 1889 he registered tor for the purpose of voting the prosecution hold that after a man has become a polygamist he cannot register except through being pardoned by the president judge powers was engaged in the prosecution of the case taking the leading part judge mckay was also engaged in the case the defense was represented by rawlins and moyle after the im paneling of the jury judge mckay stated that the case for the government was that in may last wm B bennett registered that he had been a polygamist for years and was not entitled to registration that his legal and plural wives were still living and that he was still a polygamist mr mckay examined the witnesses john B bennett being the fairstone fir first stone one called he testified the defendant is my father he lives at west jordan my mother sarah bennett is also living there hannah dowden bears no relation to father I 1 have heard that she was his plural wife I 1 could not say that he has lived with her heard the defendant say aay that he had bad been married to her this was five or six years or more ago never heard of him having any other wife mother is the legal wife to mr rawlins Baw lins I 1 have been away most of the time the last five years have been home since last march so far as I 1 know father has lived with mother only mrs elizabeth hall testified hannah dowden is my mother she lives at sandy I 1 know sarah bennett she is the defendants wile mother was the polygamous wife of mr bennett till she got a divorce about a year ago they were married in 1878 and lived together they were divorced divo meed in may 1888 after the divorce she moved away I 1 have not seen him there for a long time to mr ballins since the divorce there has been no relation of husband and wife judge powers objected to testimony regarding the separation and argued that a man mad who had been a polygamist could only become eligible for registration through the pardoning power of the president mr rawlins contended that the relations being illegal the citizen by his own act could dissolve it he have to ask the permission of the president of the united states to cease doing an unlawful thing such a thing would be a absurdity this defendant defendant had set aside the polygamous om relations and was therefore eligible for registration registration reli judge powers why if this thing goes polygamists can procure a church divorce and can register and vote and the edmunds law would become a farce this is a very serious th thing i ing I 1 say there is only one way that a man can be relieved of the polygamous status and that is by executive clemency which is an easy thing to get he cant be rehabilitated with the franchise in any other way it would be very easy for the whole lot of DO po lyga mists to make application publicly for ain amnesty nesty and they would get it but they dont want to do this and until they do I 1 say they cannot exercise the frai franchise chise if they do they nullify the law I 1 say that if the plural wife should die he could not become eligible he has been a polygamist in the eye of the law and cant be anything else unless the president pardons him his own act or the act of god could not absolve him it must be by executive clemency and in no other way judge zane examined the aw lavand and the supreme court decision for about an hour and then announced 1 I wish to examine into this still further so the court will take a re ceas till 2 judge zane reviewed the proposition of judge powers that the p polygamous lyga status could not be terminated by any ceremony without amnesty or pardon the question is what is the meaning of the term polygamist lyga mist as used in the statute and what is necessary to terminate that relationship relation snip in a general sense a man is a polygamist who practices polygamy or maintains that it is right but that is probably too general a deti deh for this statute sta lu the case of murphy vs ramsey bamsey the united states supreme court said the law did riot not apply to those who went into polygamy before there was a law against it but to those who were actually in 6 ship a man must actually have a plurality of wives to be a polygamist the fact of cohabitation is not a feature in determining the meaning of the term A man ceases to be a polygamist when he fully and finally terminates the relationship the way to accomplish this is not pointed out so the question is what is necessary tort toa cause a cessation ol of the polygamous relation cau can the relation exist where the parties have not only ceased to cohabit but have separated in good faith that is does it exist because of the former relationship tion ship to maintain a relationship requires some act of the mind to conta continue nue the condition that is consenting to recognize mure more than one woman as a gift does a man recognize a woman as his wife when she is not and they have separated in good faith the supreme court holds to the idea that there must be a recognition that is that a mau man must recognize plural wives as wives if the parties pub publicly liely say they separate and their conduct shows they are acting in good faith that it is a an n effective separation the question as to good faith will ivill be for the jury to determine the section regarding amnesty or pardon does not seem to have any connection with this question these parties might obtain amnesty and yet continue the polygamous relation the evidence on that point will be admitted the question is whether these parties have separated and in good faith dissolved the relationship mrs hall continued the reputation has been that he has been her husband and that the relationship ceased in 1888 when they separated mother understood that they had finally separated and that she was no longer his wife he has given her ber no support since then nor recognized her in any way as his wife they got a church divorce mrs hannah dowden testified 1 I reside at sandy I 1 was the defendants ant Is plural wife we were married about ten years ago we were divorced in june 1888 it was a chuch divorce divorced ceI I 1 applied for it because I 1 did not want to live with him gedid not get along very well together he did not ask for the separation he be had to agree to it he consented to the divorce the divorce was then introduced in evidence it reads as follows know all men by these presents that we the undersigned undersigner under signed william wiliam B bennett und hannah N ben net this wife before her marriage to him hannah nash do hereby mutually covenant promise and agree to dissolve all the relations which have hitherto existed between us as husband and wife and to keep ourselves separate and apart from each other fr from om this time forth in witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands at west jordan utah this fourth day of june A D 1888 signed by W B bennett and hannah nash bennett in the presence of jos J williams and mary K R mills mrs dowden reply to mr rawlins I 1 complained because h he was j id i kul ni i aith gr afe ab wife acknowledged hy me as such did not complain of his not visiting me he came occasionally but not very often he neglected me he does not recognize me as his bis wife we have fully and finally separated we dissolved partnership for good 1 am not now his hie wife the divorce means what it says at least I 1 hope so colonel henry page county registrar testified to the appointment of H J crandall as deputy registrar for west jordan precinct H J crandall testified that mr Bennett took the registration oath may 13 1889 the prosecution rested and mr rawlins asked the court to instruct the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty judge powers opposed the request he said if this was not a case of fl illegal registration there was nothing to prevent every polygamist in the territory from voting they could privately vatA ay iy agree to live separate and getti getting ngai a mch 11 ch divorce keep it in their pocket it is like the idaho bu business giness where they withdrew from the church only they can do it privately this will say that the statute means nothing I 1 say there must be public notice ot of the dissolution of the relationship in accordance cor dance with the form of law law judge zane if they agree in ill good faith to separate and do it that settles it judge powers he has not said anything of the kind he is just as much a polygamist as ever mr rawlins counsel has no DOE right to bring in outside considerations side rations of qi political nature it is simply this has this mai ended the relationship by separating in good faith from frem his plural wife this has been shown show n to be the case and we are entitled to the instruction asked for judge zane stated that thai the substance of the evidence was that the parties entered al into the polygamous relation does the agreement overturn this arran arrangement gemont if this man intended to cease this relationship he would so express it an and 1 I I 1 think he hernould should go on the witness stand and say so the defendant wm B bennett Bennef ct testified stifled te that he had separated from his plural wife in good faith he said I 1 was willing to separate we were cirei of the bargain bar gaiD she applied for the decree and I 1 signed it my intention was to finally dissolve the relation it was intended never to renew the relationship when 1 I registered I 1 considered that I 1 was not a polygamist to judge powers I 1 married hannah nash in the early part of 1878 1 I have never dever had any but the two wives I 1 have not considered considered hannah nash my wife since the divorce I 1 dont know anything about the eternity part of the marriage I 1 dont don t consider her my wife because there has been a se separation ration irl judge u ige powers dont you consider her your celestial wife judge zane well confine ourselves to earthly matters and let the hereafter alone judge powers dont you consider her your celestial wife mr bennett I 1 do not consider her my wife this separation Is com plew so far as earth is concerned I 1 dont know anything about the hereafter I 1 intended to put an n end to our polygamous relation jos JOB J williams testified that hannah nash had complained thai the defendant bad not provided fat s or visited her they agreed to be separ t ate and I 1 got the decree they r agreed that the separation be final the matter was publicly talked of to judge powers there wet wem it couple of trials she said she wonted to dissolve the relationship tj thi both wanted to separate judge zane instructed the july tb acquit which they did |
