Show I 1 I 1 DISMISSED W j charles Koni gaist of ot hooper a charge cf of unlawful cohabitation in commissioner Ito rogers gera cour court t yes cs berday berd ay iy afternoon tho the examination of diaries charles Ko Ro of hooper on a charge of f unlawful cohabit cohabitation atio n took place the prosecuting a attorney ito aney ft was no not t arese prese present nt tho the commissioner therefore had to examine the witnesses himself tho the defendant wo as represented by C C richards En hards esq the complaint barged charged that the defendant had claimed lived and cohabited with jano jane doo doe and sally doe contrary to the statutes of the U united led states for the firpi witness the court called sophia londquist llo Ro the defence ob jetted to the ladys being sworn except on her voir diro dire the laly la ly was sworn on her voir voir dire lire and find te testified stifled that she wa was the lam lawful ful wife of the tire do fen pendant dant the defence objected 1 to any ariy further questions being asked tho witness and pho she was excused the next w witness was w as mr bimpson simpson the postmaster at hooper ho mid KA lie was acquitted acquin ted with the defendant had heard the repute that ho lie had a second or plural wile wife did not know that he lie lid hou however ever from bis his own know kno led john everett was next called witness ness is is a registration officer in in the hooper district the court asked if the defendant and ins his ak w ifo ife were registered to this question the ob ejected the court explained eipl lined he however that tile object of the quoi tion was ag to find out the a of the first m wife ife if tire name is on tho the list tho list could be obtain obtains tie I 1 and the name of the lady my obtained from it the of ob ejection un was 3 withdrawn and the tile wit ness nm j tetti testified fied that the names of the defendant and his 1 m wife ifo were not on tire list the witness in answer to further questions stated that it is 14 re buted that the defendant has more than one wife he ile did not dot know the tile of the lady nor had ho he seen the ainie defendant efen dant with her did not know where pho she lived had heard lived on in defendants farm joh mit C everett a son of 0 I 1 tho pre cc bedin ding witness took alie stand he ile let te tided tint that the name of the alleged second ni ife of the defendant is annie jacobson she lives on defendants farm about three miles distant from ho the reside residence of ins lawful wife all that witness had to guide him in in his iris statement that the defendant lias has more than one wife mile was repute he hid aked a ked no questions ho lie bad only listened tho tire court asked tile w wit it ness if lie had over ever seen the defendant defenda nt at the residence of annie jacobson witness atness replied that he lie ha had a seen hi him in in in the field BOW ing and rea reaping pi n m the court then inquired it witness i tn ess knew m what hat defendant did lid with the tie f I 1 harvest the defence objected to the question the court stated that it 1 was asked bw or the purpose of 0 trying to it the tire defendant hid had contributed anything thin to the support of annio annie jacobson sir mr richards replied that the defendant was not on trial for supporting anybody body the charge was unlawful ay co cohabitation I 1 the courts have repeatedly charged cliar god that the fact of support having been rendered alone is not sufficient to establish guilt the objection was sustained tred and the witness was asked if be lie had ever seen the defendant in the compin company of the alleged second wife atness it ness said that he siw saw the defendant and his lawful wife at the house of annie jacobson in the birly part of 1833 the decenco moved to have tins this pirt part of the tile witness itne gs testimony stricken out and the motion was granted the point was that the testimony did not relate to the time c charged in in the complaint the court inquired if any of the witnesses knew if vnnie annie jacobson ha has any children none of them know if the lady was a mother at this tilis point tha the co m IS glanced around the tire room attl and conr espied ii ed a gentleman Bt laii whom as mr N 1 r rogers afterwards tta ted he thought was a relative of the defendant he ile called the gentleman to the witness baand and ad administered anini inini cred the oath court ta alie le coun asked the witness two questions and then excused him these questions were what is 5 your our name and w hero where do you on reside the man answered that ho he was ft a resident of bark city and also gae gave his name which indicated that ho was an irish manthe court stated that ho he thought the man was a relative 0 the parties and could probably tell the luino name of the first w wife ip a this was all the evidence eviden ice for the prosecution cution and the defence moved for the discharge dib charge of the defendant tho the court granted tho the motion and mr Ho Kond quiet was release 4 and arld his ills bonds were exonerated |