Show L 1 IN L al J zealous Zane Sends miss aji spencer acer to 0 abat iary for a eglit fig t t 1 z 1 1 Lod lodging gine I 1 i ii V 1 a ay 1 J refuses to be saw STOr the clawson case a k 1 v I 1 I A ma dew ef xe hii is ifs abat bix six minutes past ten ted by the federal court friday morn morning ing as maral marshal ini ireland pronounced the traditional hei r 6 e alca hear JP e and ohp tribunal of the tile aff j civial was announced to be in session the nine jurors ob tain bained d on ou were called amt I 1 ai I 1 fo ll 11 undo to ibe present and drawings the then made from the open venire venito of twenty four names nan es issued is suei thi thua thy eien evenin inc erand and made returnable at 10 BID ro F friday tue pan aide e iwas first all t 16 t aby t al thea th beleny on the grouch ath tha denire of thursday with the additional ground goun that the second open venire out when this third open venire was issued and returned but the th challenge ion ga bastilla bastiana Bast ilnA A bechtol and fred R madeira were drawn and called up ha hadl deard tid conversation i atlon ing of teleca tb arom convers and from being present in the court two or br three times but did not know that he lie had formed or expressed ran tan opinion a aa asto st to its merits he was challenged for implied bias and ind ex I 1 az ended 44 mr had haj heard of and T ie read r a d a little of ith itlie c case and bad formed 10 rd ra 1 and expressed an opinion concerning it he lie accepted hearsay evidence evi dince mr cariln are you i AI habit of doing that thit witness 1 I dont know that I 1 amk 1 r aji 1 t a Q you want to get off dont you A pros now usi danish I 1 I 1 that thought from your mind would you beg tided byarre by di arrn pin tk I 1 in this case in preference ce to rumor and Is hearsay arla y evidence donea C TT I 1 au I 1 vt af avier 4 1 I rw r w M d t mt it would require evidence to remove my I 1 present opinion varos ve we deny the challenge judge zane la Is it a fixed opinion you have at ir 3 nol ariit much icle of an I 1 opinion pl vion cither either wry but it would rb roa adb n to what I 1 have to remote i it teto I 1 court lie fie dors does not seem tobaie to have a fixed opinion the objection is overruled i f 14 ix ceped 0 o an and witness for actual bias overruled overfilled I 1 amr madeira had formed an 0 opinion from irom reading the tribune and and herald and itula re qu 0 i great ire a t deal of evidence evid inee tor emow it I 1 he le was challenged challen ped and excused e mr bechtol was then sworn makine making ten jen jurors obtained thus far J IV mason and jol in drawn mr Mc was objected to and excused because wrongly named hi his right name be ing james Mc Hc 1 1 v C TL 1 Steven eon son u was as c called a I 1 ed to take tak e his li is place mr mason w was aa questioned and said lie has just hist returned from a five ilya weeks ft S read but one paper in that tiiu cand heard little or bothi nothing rig of the trial and was conscious bias he ile was passed mr stevenson had beard the tile cascais case dia cussed and had formed and expressed an opinion as ui to guilt or innocence wh 1 clo could not be changed very verb well he ile too was excused ou on being challenged mr mason passed as to polygamy anil habitation cohabitation and was as sworn making eleven jurors passed J L i Die dickinson kinson was drawn and being bein questioned admitted having read and heard card odthe of the case and formed Arr an opinion asto as to its inesita no pr prejudice that A rould affect his judgment inthe in the presence of sworn challenged for implied and actual bias ively floth both phalle n rig a kivor overruled ruled further qu questioned es lie said ild he was not a mormon buthi wife wire was brought up one and had relations inns in lit the church he lie lived opposite 1 murray lorray in lilt seventh ward and not be liec lieve in ili polygamy lir or plural cohabitation ha 11 eded peremptorily by tatt ad excused william showell has was called and claiming liis his privilege aa as U 84 d mall messenger was excited WA pitt had most decidedly formed and injun qualified 0 opinion ind and waa was excused J M Richard richardson hon was excused for alie flame cause cau e Wil william lisin E jacobs had bad formed and expressed a qualified opinion which it would require strong lovi dence to remove ratu ove challenged for fb implied bias challenge de and overruled challenged for actual blu challenge sustained ined and juror excused eith sed james anderson was excused fur for a similar nilar reason james glendenning had not formed or ex an opinion and was not LOO coll pres cio bi asand did not believe in polygamy poly fal y or plural cohabitation excused on 0 n ground of no 1 ilea as to residence re V j i MI i thomas smith sinith had ba S heard he rj tu hut t little and read nothing not liing of the case basea and had not formed or expressed any 0 he said he lie did not even know of oil ilia late arial till the day lay before it went to the jury he ile passed pas sedas as to polygamy gainy and challenged haj fn an ed as to non conre re dauee gilem e and ahal hat deage overruled juror IV H lif W 11 bowers bo ers was challenged peremptorily by the defense objected to 46 the juror had been sworn and objection sustained austal hed the panel of the jury was challenged by the defense ihil hal J long lenge overruled tiled mr smith ar alth was SWO sworn ra and the ju u rj y was ilien then aria 1 alce lee they now eland andas as follas foll qs I 1 IJ efam J farrell 1 I ua I 1 1 i I 1 11 I 1 ll 11 fitzgerald I 1 charles connor charlea charles barnett henry denhalter J 1 I 1 1 1 I l I 1 a 1 kh john n IV 11 11 II lJ butters I 1 al 11 E B wilder i S f r A jl A 1 1 J I 1 J NY alason I 1 I 1 thomas smith I 1 the clerk read tl the te ItAk indictment tine ato to tile jury and the lite trial wal alice alive din dinwoodey ay iy was railed called for the we prosecution and testified I 1 her e M I 1 I 1 A I 1 testimony did not differ from that given gi ven by h er trial ilen henry ry dinwoodey bl being eln gs sworn worn testified tho only new things ad the prosecution were ivere to the whether edid he did not hot on a certain day baye have the defendant deed wailin 16 h i in a apiece piece of real destito the tile ward property of alip defendant 1 with the thi motive of protecting alie interests ii daughter florence as against agai nat a second wife that defendant had taken or was going to take the admitted the property rop erta transfer tee but repudiated the motif sug pe apted sted then asked why ho he nevea the defendant about hia relationship as ancer an and requested to swear ho he ti did d not refrain from it because lie wast wk ally 11 ferlain in that elie she was as his bis second V bulj i 1 I 1 I 1 1 orinal oath and va was then asked risked to swear that ho lie did not admit before the grand jury that gliatas Jlia tas keeping ping silent alint r lowthe on the matter he ile signi signified fled his willingness lin gness tol to beear to this and mr dickson lick json ins ilia confessor then resisted desisted des isted tuyla 1 till 2 pm I 1 aj L tf wrape f 12 ta pill cju clawson claw son case resumed wilh with the tile examination of nr who was again aika to 6 swear that i rb reason ho lie did lid not speak ta the defendant nt re regarding gailing the lydia spencer was bec auselle he knew she was his ilia wife the tito to the aa as 03 immaterial and as tending to bring before the jury by indirection evis dence which alch could hot ba be reach eddi erectly the question was withdrawn withdraw ri for the present and the tile witness was I 1 ibi P irate interest out 1 with the I 1 e e ile JE g q 3 acred u nc OF vard red alie e f arst bauc question tian was as then rep repeated bated I 1 air M r bennett anett again objected to this and likewise to the citation of ens dence alleged to have been given by tha arand jurgas it was an improper line of procedure tending to prejudice the tile defend defendant anta cause I 1 in n tl alie e eyes a of f th the a ju jury r the rules rule of f cej evidence e he lie ma maintained yi ai ned shW labe strictly bb observed served ed particularly in a ciso case like tins this surrounded as laiwa iwas by ui heat haak and excite rii joint I 1 fent an st arispa I 1 fluid I 1 d attempted was ft as only it a allowable in cases of or im peach ment of witnesses mr dickson in reply held beld that they were strictly within the rules of evidence and were entitled to the broadest latitude where as in this 4 case aae a wit witness was wa hostile to the pr acl on they li had d aright he claimed to reach evidence by bv indirection as by asking A wit witness nebi if he did not Jern remember ember testifying ly before another tribunal or on another occasion to td what he lie now did if it was the intention to refresh tile the witness memory and follow up no by further evidence connected uth avith the question tito court held that the procedure of the ution was allowable able and the Witt witness lebS waa was permit permitted td to answer the question which he lie did to the ef cf frit that his silence defendant relationship with lydia kasnot was not d due e to ilia knowing that she was his wife nife ho ile waa was next asked if he lie knew yet ct where his big wife wire mrs afi was and answered anaw ered abathe did not riot hoewaa alt hiked if li lie e d did id n not ot k know n ow shy abl e was it hiding id I 1 n g away aw ay to aid ibe a subpoenaed lie denied this also excused ve we continue the enri ar froni from the S leherald Li herald i louneal Jon caMai barted I 1 live at sir mr Dinwood cyB I 1 dont kenw lidja L ha spencer I 1 dout know of any flights that redger clawson claw son remained away awa from home I 1 know miss s cla clays s I 1 dont reale remember niber ever having fold told lier her that I 1 cluid not leave homo home becam became e mr clawson Cl artson was not riot to be thero ther I 1 akia tha night no one olie lias hais xo me aimo sint 0 1 I waa was subpoenaed today jolin john INI waa was called but being in abs alsept crit junies ances E caino aine took the stand lie reiterated his former state statements as Is to the defendants admission to him that lydia spencer was wits hia second wile e odthe of the subsequent con corn creation with the tile defendant etc etc to the defense Walderman lund was in the store etore it if he lie wa was i near at the tile time the admission was made lie was washid bad I 1 asked the question as lie to whether lydia spencer was the defendants fen fend danti ants second wife from curiosity 1 I 1 suppose I 1 ila biad no other reason I 1 never saw lydia spencer purchasing any goods in the store holers rogers and deckar in the sto store reat at the tile time odthe of the second conversation john M young was again called lie te testified stifled to nothing lien new except to state when asked if lie had seen al mcclawson Mr r clawson and miss mim spencer af at the tile tabernacle 1 that he lie did not attend the th e tabernacle ale arall rail ledta spencer said ardick son there wa kaaa abuzz a buzz of excitement rough but ho courtroom at a neat figure from a crowded bench berich m fling and made its way t to 0 tile in front babe blithe jurors lox turning to face lie the misa miss disclosed to tile eagerly gadingan gaz gazing ingan audience a some what w hat pale hut but ft handsome one withal w ihor tier lips rather firmly closed and a gen eral air br bf ap termination visible up apon the tile face abid evident about the joie joi e took the chair without delay i The clerk at according cordIng toi to tha he custom asked het to stand up and take the oath path whereupon tin khe faid 1 I decline to take the oath I 1 mr derkson un kon will 1 A no har I 1 Q reason A ai well twel 1 I 1 J jnet tfx d decline al 1 n e to I 1 baket ak a I 1 t will your honor instruct in lit this case I 1 abd judic 9 zahe do you decline to take the oath A Yee i I 1 judge i ain ane po I 1 d PC octine I 1 line 1 tb to affirm A a air mr cariap you dec aie to be a w witness asi as I understand A mr dicksen Dicks nn vve we will ask your honor to brait for a few minutes we lve will contend if your flonor bleue blut this refusal to be sworn without any reason adieu is W a can contempt tempt of if court there is no q question estion about abou t that and we say I 1 it t s oll it P punishable under the tile united states Stites 1 in t tio tia ia organic act elds court in united stites calesi es is by provision provi mon aion invested it b tile power of a F virtol of th alib buinz w aa 1 11 A TN 4 i I 1 I 1 a united case vasse contempt if committed on t the he trial I 1 of a united states case ease id is punishable a we behal hal contend content under united states laws and hot under tinder the territorial laws the tile territorial law lav is limited as to its period of punishment namely avo days we claim that it is punishable under he the united states laws a a that it is in the discretion of the court to order the witness to be confined for fora a year or for any reason reasonable able time and wo we wish vish to be heard an that question judge zane very well air dickson I 1 will ask the ilie witness ono one or two questions before the argument m an t is commenced I 1 unde understand estand add miss lydia spencer you decline to bes be sworn worn inthis taie case A yes sir air Y Is it because you haye have any conscientious scruples against taking ah sh oath in any case or is id it 1 simply simpy that yon decline to be a wi witness toes in in this case A I 1 du not care to be a witness in any cast case Q do you decline to affirm A I 1 do I 1 I 1 I 1 i Q do you decline abao absolutely t to I 1 test ty y st qt all in the ho case A I 1 I 1 do th the prosecution hadsyl had evidently aap tt i a anticipated tcp at e d just such an outcome ad althis this as mr snow had bad left the ilia room lawe diat elir before miss SIen spencer had lidd bean been called he lie now returned his 1118 arins laden with law books and asked on the part of the tile prosecution to be heard in support of the emotion lie was about to make iio ile then said that in behalf of the government disagreeable it might be he begged to move moye that tha t this lady be committed for contempt for refusing to act as a witness in this case in malting making that motion be he asked not that eho she be he committed for twos two thre eor five days which would ho lie the limit of the leng af imprisonment for contempt under the local territorial statute sta tufe under the special pl practice e tice act of 1874 1374 and applicable to 1 civil I I 1 cases but it was a motion that his honor exercise the broad power conferred u upon on him birn as the ic presen of stat that coll court r t the court of general jurisdiction and to commit thia ady to imprisonment for such a it tima time as befit mr rubw then cit edthe dase casoff of mrs schofield the reputed refuted second wife of george reynolds and proceeded to make an add address ref a on that celebrated case when mcbennett mr bennett ob jecter to ho the argument proceeding in the presence of the jury i the jury were therefore conducted to another department by the bailiffs mr snow proceeded by citing the connell con nelly case the belle harris case and the nellie white case drawing attention to the brief imprisonment each one had endured lor for contempt he lie then came to the present case cabai stated that tho desm tying on nc ng conscientious grounds jint merely because she objected to giving evidence in this particular case more llian in hour houe was then consumed br by mr Suc snow in reading various au authorities thorl eidl 01 ti support the view that the th e court the power to imprison imprison for contempt for tor any length of time it saw fit during the whole argument slim spencer bat sat quiet quietly I 1 IV in the tile wi witness k clia chair fr while the tile spectators yarned shun llod their feet |