Show DISTRICT COURT the case of theu 8 TS vs lre W IS s barrett on trl trial A NEW QUESTION I 1 f can a first wife who ie Is WUI will ins ini to testify do so coif 6 if her t 1 T I husband objects te 1 JAST jax 4 1887 1841 st 10 am today to day I 1 the court denied the collun for a new trial ia th matter of child ye yo wills the tha app eal in the case of stinger re man a wa at dismissed dis missid I 1 the case of the united 8 states ozta s IV E bassett we was then called for trial ile charge is polygamy W if H dickson prosecuted the a catte and rawlins ben sheeks aid Q C richards charde Iti appeared for ahn th defendant considerable time was consumed in empanelling a it jury andrew larsen latsen was challenged lor cause ou on the ground that he had once lived in the practise of polygamy and had never been divorced second wife mr ali larsen aid said he did not believe in the practise at the present line time and that chehad been pardoned by president arthir and oo 00 being asked what caused him biro to disbelieve in if 11 replied that it waa was because reason to and common ense sense had col kotae a bof am e him and convinced him anat it iwae was wrone air larsen was required to produce the copy ofalie pardon W which wae by tho thu cou court rt ao 0 F II 11 I 1 Dudley wae by the and thoma thomas grant an 1 charles iCharles webb by the defence also johnson pullam the jury blieu completed stock a as follows ed Bei sewell well temple short peter anderson william beaton mark hatcher charles chirles jay C A eklund john germer john alien allen A 1 I george burrows Hur rows and joseph jenkins the indictment wa read and mr mrs sarah W bassett was wad sworn ekorn air mr what ie is your full name please witness sarah william DR Bace sett ett where were w ere yon you marri married ed to the defendant mr basse in ingvale I when an the 2nd day of may 1872 I 1 I 1 ou come to thil this country 42 where dilyou ato ga to 11 f ri in the i d city how flow lung long did old you ou live there I 1 dont d ont know didge did you a afterward move to logan i yes 4 air did Ard leave loan loran and return e to balt lak fatt 1 L wa salt late laue chiy yes air sa s1 T 13 do 0 you know kate rate S ye yes sir air did you ever havo have a conver conversation zit lon with the defendant in which he r made nade a statement ta bement to you respecting hie his marriage to kale kate you day ay hesitate in o 0 itis hi ques lon tiou GO so as ta toi give oa 01 time timi for an aion 4 M mr r aly t iti r e a s were aay any person breser eav en t abie b is lion tion too klace f 1 I there wre nol nolL mr rawl hawlins in we lye object if your honor to t thi lis question u es e con berning erz ing the tile coave r e ten een ian ess and defend de defendant an WT the cebu that eho she Is IN t inious t an t to testify a against he respecting the wi matter iran between them concerning and that the elie ie Is incompetent 40 testify of any ariy communication n iciL tion from iia defendant to her ler during u ring b her er marriage ciutti couls 1 would libb liku to ask the witness one question I 1 do not know whether it will have any bearing upon the case or not the question is whether to beine being worm sworn mr rawlins aj J will ack ask ber the question to withiel withies wi thies haye may a you aay any objections to b eing sharri aad ad twi dying in able 1 l nd ear fr mr ii I 1 wish it understood that the defend defendant in roba object acts mr rawlins then to arcue the be question I 1 e said that he had bad examined allie les of all tle the State in iu the had bad been th the 0 t 1 alicy that thit i a hubband husband vot ot be allowed er or permitted iq d lis close con communications s rc received elved from aroi cuber either parly party before the thi conclusion of tho the an argus cu meat wa wa tation this afternoon the he giumenta arguments riu menta of counsel en on the question raised in the morning were continued and at three pm were on I 1 I 1 a |