Show BOUND OVER examination into the cannon case ended TESTIMONY OF MAJOR MASOR WOOD the tho alleged admissions of the defendant scrutiny scrutinizing z ing the divorce about 10 ocl on friday deputy marshal N gleason and 10 or 0 r 12 assi assistants lants surrounded the residence d e n ca 0 f ajohn job n Q can cannon n on southwest of salt lake city and made a search mr cannon was not there so they repaired to the cannon farm farther south where he was found aud served with a warrantor warran tot ar reston the charge of unlawful cohabitation mrs louie W cannon was also arrested as a witness the defendant was taken to his house and there guarded until saturday morning when he be was brought before com missioner mckay and pleaded not guilty to a complaint signed by D W reach and charging him with unlawful cohabitation from january let lat to september 30 1886 thAnnie wi W cannon and louie M wells as his w nivea ives L tho the bonds in hi thia this case were placed at making a total of under which the defendant fen dant is placed that of the witnesses Is also increased to 1500 the sureties accepted were francis armstrong and james jack after the conclusion of this proceeding ce oe aa as we learn from the deseret news the examination on the polygamy charge was continued before commissioner mckay mr dickson and bis his assistant mr varian were both present the rooms were again filled with a crowd of spectators but as the experience of the day before had bad cod convinced vinced the commissioner that his carpets were not benefited by the presence of loafers he ordered all to leave except those interested in the case and officers and reporters the first witness called was geo Goo 11 cannon mr air dickson however soon his mind and substituted mrs annie W cannon who testified since I 1 was divorced I 1 have lived n defendants house bouse louie has not ived lived there but bas been there neary every night at my request because of the sickness of my child the defendant does not live there he lie has not made it his home since the divorce I 1 remember when the officers came there was a shirt in my childrens bedroom it belonged to the defendant def dant 11 n irkson hn ats there mr richards ds we object to that question as immaterial overruled witness mr cannon had not taken ins clothes away lie asked me to fix them up but I 1 had not done so 60 and the day before be he came and changed his white shirt for a colored one as a he intended to work in the fiela field it was in the middle of the day louie louis was not there I 1 first concluded to apply for a divorce the sunday afternoon before 1 got it I 1 spoke of it as loon soon as I 1 learned of the tb confession spoke to n my ay iy brother in law abram a and asked hie his help he referred me to judge smith whom I 1 sent for the th 0 judge came down on the ath abram also came there I 1 told judge smith what I 1 wanted and he told me thoa I 1 would have to make a complaint he asked me a few questions did not ask who the offense was committed w with or when or where I 1 told him it had been committed I 1 also talked with abram who waa was not in the room while the judge was there I 1 eaid said I 1 wanted ho he custody of the children and to be provided for I 1 wanted it kept quiet in the afternoon abram and an judge smith came down with the complaint which bad been made out by george 31 cannon they came about 2 p m the defend defendant ant was out on the farm I 1 never filed but one barmo cm complaint plaint did d not sign the papers at the tile same time as the defendant took the complaint into anether room and read readia it then returned and sign deigned it I 1 again again asked that the divorce div V ed be granted imma immediately dia tely talked with the judge abram cannon having gone out the judge told me to come to the court next day I 1 had not talked with the defendant after signing the complaint the judge eald said he lie would have to see about it U before he lie could state when the decree would be gransee gran sed I 1 went to court next day having baying received a message from the judge abram brought the message the defendant was not there I 1 went up next day aloney alone went to the county court house to the court room it was about 9 a mi judge smith was there the defendant was not nor was the clerk I 1 was sworn and the jud judge e asked some questions question relative to afe the divorce he did not ask as me wart I 1 knew of the charge against the defendant to mr richarde richard 1 when I 1 met judge smith at the court holec ho lie asked roe if I 1 believed the facts alleged in the complaint to be true did at the and I 1 answered that 1 bouse house the day beff before after the complaint waa was sinned abrain took the and went out immediately ve papers lie did not come back into the room before the jume judge left they drove down together and went away to I 1 asked the duj judge e when I 1 gether saig should come and he eaid he would let lot me ki know low ae As the judge judg ewas was starting away way bo be eaid aid he thought I 1 might come ep up next day but would let me know to abbani came back in A little more than an hour and told me roe to ito come up the next morning he lie wa was baak and forth a great deal george georgo 31 cannon testified look looking ILI g at complainant I 1 drew that paper on september ath at my office about noon ab abram ram if cannon requested me to do so I 1 did not s beethe the defendant that day igafo I 1 aavo judo judge smith before t the he complaint to 5 pm to mr r richards it might have b been en delivered to the judge by two 0 or three could not b be 9 post b tive it took abent fifteen to write it aa As soon ae as I 1 saw sem the judge judie u I 1 banded handed it to him with a request that he lie attend to it to air mr dickson I do not re ber the hour I 1 completed the paper I 1 did considerable work in lie the office a after givin giving 9 the paper to the jud judge ig e I 1 close the at 5 pm I 1 may inay have completed the document an hour and a half before could not state positively judge E A smith testified I 1 re res alved the complaint from george N M cannon in the afternoon after i 1 perhaps an hour later abram abrain came and naked me to go down and have it verified we went to mr cannons place abram went with roc me we started not later than 3 pm altogether I 1 wae was pone gone frota the office an hour I 1 saw john QT j cannon after annie NY cannon signed the complaint conversed with wilh him about the plaint divorce in tho the morning I 1 then said tolila to him it was a sad case for a young couple to part and for ilia his wife to get adly a divorce orce lie said the alimony was arra arranged ngod for I 1 had told mrs cannon what to do I 1 did not see the defendant between that time and when I 1 saw mra mrs cannon at the request of abram abrain I 1 took the waiver down for the defendant to sign sigm john Q did not request me to make it i t out abram A bram took it to him I 1 saw mrs cannon eign the paper but did not see john Q sign ign I 1 know his signature in the afternoon mrs cannon as I 1 was leaving to come the morning I 1 did not speak to the defendant but I 1 had bad received the waiver from abram I 1 do not remember telling mrs cannon to wait a few daye days I 1 may way have eaid said so before I 1 got the waiver next morning the she came to the court came alone she wag was sworn and testified that the tile facts in the complaint were true I 1 asked as to her residence etc I 1 am in the habit of granting divorcee divorces without clerical attendance on the bourt abram suggested the preparation of the waiver after I 1 received the complaint and we waited for it to be written out to the commissioner I 1 asked mrs cannon as to her residence the ages agea of her children and the confessions of the defendant she did not know who or with whom the defendant had bad committed adultery I 1 asked tho quest ions whan she swore in court she was mistaken if she said I 1 did not I 1 have granted other divorces bat under ler similar circumstances for different causes I 1 had no information as to when hie the adultery was committed e except that I 1 it was as subsequent to the marriage I 1 d did not know whether it w was within etli tb the jurisdiction of the united states to mr dickson 1 I did lid not ask whether she had bad condoned the offense did not ask whether she had slept in the house sinca since she knew it or not I 1 do not know that if she did so she condoned the offense under the circumstances stated I 1 granted the decree mrs annie W cannon recalled by mr jackson dickson the defendant and anda I 1 i received the divorce we e dia clid n not ieta bleep in the same bed to mr richards there hasteen has been intercourse since ilia his confession W W woods testified 1 I have known defendant since bis his marriage to annie W cannon annie and louie are cousins of mine my wife ie is their half sister I 1 have never been intimate with the defendant but have been with bis his family annie and louie have haye v visited my house as relative relatives I 1 have felt a peculiar interest in louie wells she was about 10 years old when I 1 first became acquainted quain fainted I 1 ted with her I 1 knew of the defendants pe fend ants marriage to annie and beard board of his bir marked attention to louie mr dickson abany time did you speak peak to john Q cannon of his attention to louie mr It richards ichards I 1 object to that as immaterial commissioner you yell may answer witness I 1 never had any conversation bat lon with him about louie until recently about aboul sept ath of this year was at his home shortly after noon sep se sears ars was present part of the time we were conversing in a building I 1 ng adjoining defendants barn I 1 told h him I 1 in if be he made ad a declaration ecla ration I 1 would cons consider ider it confidential with the privilege of telling my wife Ms dickson 1 I want the cholo conversation mr richards it should be limited with reference to the marriage with louie mr dickson Dick sonI 1 dont wish to limit it I 1 insist upon having the conversation mr richard it is entirely incompetent without limiting it in any w way adl ato aa to the subject of a marriage wo do not object the commissioner overruled the tho oba objection action 1 witness V mr sears said to defendant that we had come in view of bis his confession confes aion of adultery in view of hie his attention to louie people mormon and gentle alike said she was the adulterous woman we talked to the defendant and he eaid said 1 I have sinned against i ast both my wives afterwards I 1 agal t talked k d with him alone and he said he would vindicate louie as eoon aa as he could would be in a short t time line was acting under counsel then I 1 remarked the tile only vindication for her would open the doors of th the a penitentiary tent iary lary to him I 1 told him be waa wa outside of the church and had no right polygamous relations I 1 also spoke of his wife annie he said he lie of what who I 1 to make for her I 1 alo also conver eed with him a few days ago I 1 know that on the ath he said he e had sinned against both ef of his the next conversation was on monday or tuesday last in this city I 1 do not remember speaking of ef louie I 1 was him because ho he vol very y indignant at had not vindicated her he lie said that under the counsel he bad had received it was not yet time I 1 said if it was not for 1 I 1 would prosecute him and ho he r replied just you try it or words to that effect he did not speak of the divorce that I 1 know of I 1 think 1 I said to him you have not procured divorcee divorces he never neter told me me louie was going to be divorced f but sent me mo a letter with that information mrs annie W cannon who had been taken quite ill III was recalled and testified the defendant had no wife when I 1 izar ried him nor any other until he lie married Louie that I 1 know of W W woods conti continuing nuin g th The 6 communication is in n answer to tn one I 1 sent him I 1 have copy 0 of my letter the letter was with withdrawn Is with the agreement on both aides sides that it should not be published mr dickson Dick soo however took so copy of a portion of it witness to mr richards the first conversation must have bare been ae as early early as tuesday the ath I 1 dont think it wai was on the it was not later than the esth the tile defendant spoke of his two wives nivea in answer to air sears questions to him as to who was wal the adulterous apman he did nat say both of the girls he lie may have havo baid them I 1 am not positive e that he said wives but that is my impression he was very much agitated and buffering suffering great mental distress dietr ct 1 I 1 was as suffering keen mortification aw t was as not excited but had a feeling of pity and mortified pride I 1 asked nim bim the name of the woman with whom be he bad been cuilty and he said ho he did not think it would be made public mrs louie W cannon recalled by mr dickson I 1 am not the tile person alluded to in the complaint of annie W cannon as the th a one with whom the adultery was charged the defendant did hot commit adultery with me recess was then taken until 2 p m mr dickson remarking that hatt the case would probably take a week to be finished in the afternoon the first witness was W W woods who waa was recalled by mr dickson and said in my my first conversation with the defendant when ho he eaid said he had bad injured ared both his wives he said you should know that louie ie is my wife to mr richards he lie eaid said 1 I have sinned against both ray MV wives or in the other way wiy I 1 am sure be he eaid said she was his wife he named louie as his wife in some w way but I 1 do not exactly know in w what at connection mr sears was present I 1 think he used in both expressions to mr dickson he ile used both expressions pres and used wife in the latter at least to mr richards I 1 am quite sure lie said it to the commissioner mr sears said his confession implicated louie as s the adulterous woman and it was in in answer to that that the defendant made ado the reply mr dickson announced that that was all the testimony the had to offer mr richards for the defense in produced trod aced the record of the divorce proceedings and rested his case cue brief arguments were made by the at attorneys torn easm mr r richards asser asserting prig with emphasis the innocence of bis his client the tile commissioner however thought there ther ewas was enough in the case to send it to the grand grand anty and the defendant wae was held in bonds on the charge of polygamy and on that of unlawful cohabitation |