Show ONE CASE court sustains J justise po aers ra EE DECISION L t A loner herboso and typical decision read by justice zane the following decision was ren derc dby the supreme court of utah sittings in oily last saturday OF UTAH januar AD 1880 united states 1 indictment BV fur year lorenzo snow 1885 zinc C J th 0 defendant waa convicted of the crime of unlawful cohabitation and sentenced benten ced to im in the penitentiary for the term of six montha and to a dollars and the costs of ilie prosecution from this judgment bo has appealed to this court and insists that the evidence its tu justify aliu verdict aej if alic trial tm admitted beaure ahn ourt and jury ahat he had married each ot aliu even women named in the indictment had divora and that he all ol 01 lliam as furnished theiu support bup port fruin the evidence that was ura i married ti bore triau forty at arid to lo 10 women adeline and at atie same time and by one ceremony the latter of the two i in died and that he II 11 vincenia sin cenia r ned in alie order named taah t harriet eleanor mary and minnie alro one other pow tho last wa in 1871 marriane waa because the marriage avith two women at ilia rame time s void is the ramify w ife the evidence shows and sa admitted by defendant eliat he lias loveil and wilh the young eol and lal hi marriage to her and that she lias four chil art p tt f baini three months old arut the lawful wife was as a object inn and etith oilier testimony ya aft the following ahe married de lenfant abut forty year saso and now lias crown children by him she lives at iba old in coin any harriet and eleanor and has acen nearle thirty barf ie years aaa minnie lived in one wint of the old homestead and defendant alv d ha friendly and he lier occasionally he calla on frequency abe older the stion if ii is not abnit the only difference in in living that he det not ciell to see you as often OB he did fi wilnes elated well he calls and he amt call I 1 aa burh as I 1 did ove years abo lie does not visit me as much as he did when he b added with roe also paid in ards nation eliat ahe has that two live at home aud years old that heroes ahme pauses by the door that being one way topo through the lot eliat went away in the v 1885 and eliat the defendant was away hii or seven months that he has called on her two or three jimca 1885 and would remain per leaps half an hour that since defend to alie new brick house last he baa slept in M here witness has klepi arid ap room ia kept fur him that when he came he would gent rally b busa with their son that tia rails of late were principally willi their son that ho inquire if they were al nt all right harriet snow another wife stated was married to defendant years ago tn december of eliat year that lie is w fetherof fathe her children and that she lives in her own jonir which appellant provided for her and eliat he for her eup p he eliud visited her a few during to enquire about the eliat flie not eay chiw often lie vis ln rant n n aked wan any b relations inns ta and those of six icara api dpi to she ana were A toad deal in my younger days I 1 liec mith hini as n wife and raised liim children kow lain an old lady ineil I 1 du nut consider ahe relations binding upon me in my yoi ineer days I 1 do wilb ciui tu be ti t i diw in way mary inow s also answered tle ilter atory IB it not true thai hn baa nut called a lit bcd tam la not fiat the only din i the follo wim words DOI fall BO ann li for alie reason that li has been away from ion 11 lie alem kiil visit me as a lie did H number of aso to the further question then tiu imbs was boa cause ho wa away a greaf tion of ahe alm answered nn yea I 1 to alpi haa away the att t fur ina another ply wife uince other h ans ia cd 1 I knes I 1 fcc nirid us my 1885 eliut kenw din ereau e in hiir alio last year and te be does not live at ny losice ll sice I 1 the only difference f n i n in mv understand previous to that life you 1 urn lilied willi rne once in a while when he dined with me U was with we and my children unless chere ves company to these family mr haw n lh position afta bead of the family and oc alm licad of ho table uc lie Is liin all amt him attai aba table dr J 11 cr thal ln i ait company with tarah iut i ut aith her wib in alio carriage thyi ht U WAI luc 4 wl harriet that ho also saw defendant and sarah sitting together in the the aler in the part of the house usually occupied hy the snow family and that hey afterwards wen t pet tier in the city where defendant lives lie nud hia various wives and their families appear from the ev i den coto jae regarded by all as one family and this family has a place ai banned binned itin th e theater apart from other people that eath eat h wife and her family are regarded as a portion of defendants defend anta oribe snow fam ily fand thattie th atthe appellant is regarded as the head of this entire family by each member in 1885 tho last witness saw defendant RO in and caroe out through the gate in front of the old homestead where sarali and two of iw us wives lived but witness did not seo him KO in or come out of that lirisa liri sf the officer who arrested testified that afier he had searched defendants defend anta enuse he discovered a carpet that biad been ripped and on examina tion found underneath the carpet a trap door and andr that door a small apartment aud back of that another apartment and in that apartment he found the defendant defendant did not cobio out when until the officer made preparation to break the door defendant then said all rich t I 1 am coming out and when he came out ho paid further that is all right boap yon have done your duty come and take a drink with biej it appears from the evidence that appellant boards and with his last wife and visits hia other div ec refas ii nally not very often that aurini the year 1883 lie hadnot loaned or taken a meal with any one of llie others that he furnishes hem houses to live in and supports them that he introduces publicly as hi wives and hy liis language and conduct holds them out to the world as such the evidence proved beyond controversy that defendant cohabits with his polygamous wife minnie the remaining fact to find arm alie evidence is has he at any time during the year 1885 cohabited with the other women named in the indictment or any one of them it appears from the evidence that defendant is seventy two deais old and has mar ried nine and that seven of those wives are still living to lie first ho was married in his youth As his bassion for one wife became sa and dulled by indulgence and and as liis lust was aaen kindled by tho appearance of a younger and fresher or possibly a more attractive woman he would marry again until liis marriages have been repeated nine times and now at the ace of 72 years he is found with seven living wives the last being comparatively young with an in her arms fie furnishes homes for supports associates with claims holds out and flaunts in the face of society all these seven women as liis wives and yet he says he cohabits with but one the law must charac derize bis relation to them and his intercourse and association with them let us consider the bahe with respect to sarah his lawful wife A lawful m of itself affords a presumption of matrimonial cohabitation because such cohabitation is in accordance with duty and attends midi a marriane marri aye when to thia presumption are added the further inferences from alie fol lowing facts that defendant claimed saah all the lime as his wife and that she claims to be burh profiles pro viles 1 ur her a home and the necessaries and comforts of life that they were on bood terms that he took herto tho izeare out riding visited her occasionally al her hoisie and was the father of he children the removes every reason able doubt atiat he cohabited her as hia wife when they were associating she was not ilia par amour or bin friend simply he then bad and still has all the rights and opportunities of a nurbanu ana ne of a wife they were living and were together they were hying together under fauch circumstances the law will not permit them to say they were together merely as friends and aad wife it is not essential to matrimonial cohabitation hat ho parties should be together all the time if their inter course and relations are agreeable and they associate together aonie part time in that case the jaw doe not notice the intervals aaion owing to the necessities of life and the claims of baisi erss and trade married people are afien in each company long period than w defendant and his mere during th year 18 nd yet alicy are carded as as man and wife buchis otan the vase will marinero mariners ma travel ink 1 alanen and uglier cla bei t persons eliat could be mentioned they associate at long intervals and aie regarded tho ichird of tho act of congress of march abid 1882 wa in tended to reach conduct e proves the guilty afif any male person cohabits coh abita with inore than n woman lie shall be cuilty of a r etc when tho entire art of alio llio an otti diun tiun in a part a taken and considered tonel lur iii llie gitil of the of its and of the evil it WM intended to re nudy we are opinion that the term cohabit should be given a broad in construing the terni bo bud to the iud intent af itie act it 14 un rule in the liann of s acute that the ur the lawgiver ia to bo deduced front a stew of alie whole and every art of a statute taken and corn loseth er when the words of a statute are not explicit the intention ia tu be tho context from the ocra ed from lamfrom law from diun and of alie and the fedt and alie object remedy in view and tho intention IB dins cd actor 10 be taken or prasun and 10 what 8 to reasin rood discretion this was ahr anlo down by plowden ap pp 10 and bv th iw kant affini is the gakes of tho law afen in for intention of the legislature aa u bound haaf been accumulated by ahn and by the B I 1 kent conno 32 3 2 as 1 on statutes and constitutions p note 13 in the term cohabits coh abita alon as used in the act under consideration the court of the united states nays in the case of the united slates vs cannon hot yet reported it is the practice of unlawful cohabitation with more than one woman that is liine d at a cohabitation classed with and hav ing its outward semblance it is not on the one hand bunma altal intercourse with more than one woman general legislation as to lewd practices is left to th e territorial government nor on the other hand does the pry into the in ti macies of the marriage relation but it seeks not only to punish hiramy and polygamy when direct proof of ahe existence rela lions can be made but to prevent a man from flatting fla in he face of the world the and opportunities of a bigamous household with all the outward appearances of the continuance of the same relations existed before ahn act was passed and without reference to what may occur jn the privacy of those relations chiy court speaking hy boreman jsaie what then was the object of the congress in enacting this statute it was judging from the act intended to breaking and the predence pretence pre tence pacific reporter vol 7 no 7 p the opinion of this court in the rase of united states vs musser ibid p effect it appers plain that the intention ans to protect the marriage by prohibiting all other in form or in appearance only whether evidenced by d ceremony or by conduct and circumstances alone 0 the end of the law was a protection of the mono lamus marriage and the aioo of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation were but means to that end it is proper also IQ take into the conditions as lie national legislature anti them in which the law was to be applied and enforced they know the tune had elapsed within which a very large living in polygamy could be punished for that odense and that many of these were the most influential men in society being the hda of the churchard Chur chand that the example af pf their continuing to avo with their plural wives under a claim of divine unlit would aft a continuing invitation and an apparent justification for their follower either secretly or openly to violate the law congress therefore forbade plural marri aire in appe areni e only as well as in form and by alio example of punishment it doubtless intended to eradicate the example of apparent plural marriages as well as tho plural in the evidence against the defendant shows one of the most cases and worst examples iio lias one lawful and six plural wives living and all of them he maintains and publicly acknowledges by them as such lui claims that hois cohabiting with butone and visiting the othera alien he pleases vo aro of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict the defendant excepted to certain pars of the charge given in the lower court and assigns the riving thereof to the jury is aror the charge appears to have been one and docs not c if separate instructions each part f it be regarded as qualified by alie or if the paragraphs excepted to not when so considered aliey should not be regarded as erroneous the portion first accepts ed t is it is not necessary that the evidence should show that the defendant and these women or cither of them occupied the fame bed slept in tame dooin or dwelt under the saine necessary that the evidence should show eliat within the time in the indictment the defendant had intercourse with either of them tills wa a sta temen offu ts not ne ceary to be by elioe wa immediately followed by a statement of facts as folI the question is were they living in the habit and repute of cohabitation in complete when a man to all outward appearances is living and associating with two of more women as wives when the portion of the charge objected to is taken that which immediately f 11 jury musi have understood ihal if the def hib wives were alving in the liable aud repute of marriage and 0 o sill anac they ero living and associating together as man and wife it was biot necessary to fellow alicy occupied the aino lied slept in dwelt und r the same roof sor almy w cre nullity of inter alie jury fiust have understood that it was necessary for them 0 o bo licek from the evidence the de ciu lant and nr least two wives lived and associated together aa man and wife to all outward hinl it waa not necessary that lie should board abid lodge under the frame with or have sexual inter conr su auh them I 1 r they BO under stood the wry lint nulen aa error aliu giving aa u diaraj the quintion tion s were thay in the habit and repute of marriage tie of 0 complete when linian lu cs id hut or with tw or more bonien uv if the conduit of ho dc lias been as to load to the belief that atie parties w ero living and bif hc then lit guilty ennst with alie me in ahl h the jurors aers that they af alio defend fanto n before alicy could convict the defendant alao excepted to the following clause of the chaice and the giving error th agh allt hin children by tha barlou gonei wo nei he may ninko their welfare i he anny meat tho bomon on erm of ocial equality but U ho with them aa hobt nd with Ms wife licit guilty the edmunds livy paya there anut nn end of iho relationship i i ays the relationship must cease 80 much of the clause us stated i hat defendant might visit his children make directions regarding their welfare and nighta meef his wives on terms of ocial quality was quite as to the defendant as he could ask and lie further statement but if h ass x bated with them as u husband his wife lie is guilty was a meager statement of what had been stated more fully in the preceding part of the charge the remark that chri edmunds law guys there cud to the relation ship previously existing between and that it says the relationship lation ship must cease wa evident ly made inadvertently it was a disconnected intended to be a declaration of ali beneral intent and purpose of the law known as the edmunds law As a of ali purpose of the law it was correct that act was doubtless aimed at |