Show BASSETTS TRIAL JL The Convincing Evidence of Sarah Ann Bnssott tL A JUDGE SMITH DIVORCE I I Judge Ulnlerton CorrohorRI Ih S Opinion or JuilKe Znc on chI Cllciilliill ol flip I Irsl XVIfiB KlBht to lisllf 11 At the opening of the rhlrd District I Court at Ogden yesterday morning till 2 case against William K Bassett charged with polygamy was again taken upI up-I Ilio Court overruled tlio objection of the defense to the first wifes being allowed al-lowed to testifand an oxreption was U noted v Mrs Surih Ann llissett was reoalled i to testify as to loiifidintl tommiinii < II I tion fioili her Imsband with icguil to his uiarrjlng Kate Smith This was in 1SSI I L on the 17tb of August 4 i4 Council for leCenso objected overruled L and exception notid Dcfindant on that ti Sunday morning asked her to take a t walk with him and then confessed to Pier 1 that ho had been marriid at logan when witness told him ho had better leave as sho would not hive with 1dm anv ek longer rhoy Biibscciiunll senirateit On the 7th of November 188 sin received a summons for answering in suit for a decree of divorce Sho mil Hissilt afterwards having a 1 r conversation with him and tilling bun kl shod till all sho know about his sciond marriage if ho should press the divorce suit She had letters in her possession t liy which elm could give him away site I I J told difindant I I that I ho could no longer use with her but ho could go lo Kato if ho would provide for herself and I Pier children I I without 1 ll trotting a divorce At this paint the witness broke down i4 with grief and had a violent fit of sob C bmgWitness Witness continuing said Ha told mo l t that bo had done right anjhow without consulting mo ho never obtained I lilY gUl1t consent nn utoss i VVMIVVIION t 4 On being cross examined hy Mr Slinks tho witness said Am a mom bt r of time Mormon Church was born in Wales did not know polygamy was an article faith when I cuno to Utah In 1872 defendant was bettor posted than I and lie talked about it fro qnontl I have alwavs expressed my aversion to tho principle thoro was no understanding between its on limo subject I novel apprehended that bo would take anothei wife not oven I In I1 i1a3 1881 when Kato Smith visited our house on December 188 hero was another conversation from tho timo of the first lonvoisation I had refused to I live with defendant I Ho direct and cross At 1 that con I vorsition with defendant I was distressed but not angr have two children living L and have buried four Hero Mr Haulms moved to strike out all time foregoing evidence as inioui I petont quoting authorities to sustain his position time gust of width was a denial i of tho adnnssihihtv of the oxlrijudiiiil confession uifl time prisoner concerning his I allied I guilt Iho counsel undo I in t elaborate argument on these points Tin luosituriMi viroitviv Replied for the Oovcinmcnt maintun mg thin Iompeleno of tbo witnes to los I liCy arguing that on net omit of the tit vone S trail Ann proceedings Kate Smith of liissott was to titiinst hoe on l sidered time legal wife Beth mirriigcs constituted time corpus tlehiti tutu time same evidence was iduussiblo is to tho second imrnago winch was admissible I regarding the second no greater proof being necessirj for establishing the lit ttamt cfla 0 tirtlian tint former Iho admission I I of the accused was Biithcient The argumonts occitpud all the foro noon Mr Shocks having replied to Dick son dwelling on tlio force of tho defendants u 3 defend-ants confession and its weight in tlio criminal ptosecution and claiming that u liassetts admission of his tirst m I imago 1 did i is not form part of a cimio No corroborative evidence outsulo of tho o confession had been piodiiced that I a crmio had boon committed that Kate Smith had ovon been married u Iho Court held that the first niarn iga u und subsequent 1 cob ibitntion had boon 13u llw NIli1a of proven and it was a milter of fact foi u the jury to decide as 10 tho second mar siege i for wWI there was rircmiistantia I evidence limo objection was overruled ll and on exception noted VFH KNOOV sEssioN p At time oKiilng of the afternoon session Mrs Bassett was recalled the witness I stand by the prosecution Defendant hat told her on August 1C 1834 that ho had i5 had supper tho night before at Mr Lewis at Login Had lived separateS separate-S t4u fiom tho defendant before said limo never sent word direct or indirect te u s any olllccr of tho law concerning the matter bad boon separated about two years alter his last m irn ILO The defense retiowcd tho motion for striking out the testimony Ovcrinled exception S S Mr Haw 1ms stated to this jury that inS I in-S t S January 1880 defend int had obt lined a t divorce from Sarah Ann and shortly after married Kato Smith no previous ptS marring with tho latter having taken place Kato Smith hail boon omplojir u 1 at Lagan at a Mi Ilobms as saliswom S Site never met Basselt until after tintS uepaiation between him and his first S S wile 1 lo also handed in homo documints f purporting to refer to tint illcged dnorco S proceedings S Mrs Kato Smith 15 isett said I was S married to defendant on T inn irj J i u 1880 at Salt Lake 1 City never intered S S 3 r into any other marrngo nlation whimS whim-S him was born in Lagan wall engaged Si the fourth Ward Coop store for livo S t years oil and on till lanuir H IRS in August 1884 she was working in that store contimiousl kept some books I u went to the store at 7 i 0 in tho morning and stayed till 1110 p 1 in bometimes S later i took dinner next door bnikfast S and supper at fathers homo win ro I had charge of time motherless femur i she 5 S identified f time day book In I kli she had i u S made entries in August 1884 never saw Bassott that month and cvin after was only on shaking terms with him visited 5u t S Salt Lake in October 1884 slaying several nights there at diflorent places 1 she met defendant only once mil shook S bands with him in time presence of others S SS Cross Had know defend ml for nluo u u years as passing acqn ilntances lie cumo more intimate with him about fom months before hi ing married tccipti S I defondants 1101 OSVI m MVltlllAtll S S is In December 188 on condition tint ho 1 would get a divorce from Sarah Vim but r tssSs S he had eommcnced his alldrlsslI to PierS Pier-S in October BIO aiicptmg him not 11 caring whether ho would get a divorce or S not from his lawful wife Could not toll what courting meantnever council I much herself Understood Bassetts attentions I S at-tentions were fnendl ly Was in time I habit of answering letters from entlo maim oven marriid men although thin wore only passing acquaintances Had refused bcfoio tho drand llIry i I to answer tho question as to whether she S had been married to Bassett before bo I I 1 I Si S i Ti u I 9 CI80 site thought legal wife could not testify agaInst her luisbind Was in login Tcmplo I In luues I 1884 u could re I lYl 1li site tfl I nember no other lime she was there ox reptin December > of that year but not in vugust Dickson scrutinred tho entries In tho store lOok to tho embarrassment of witness It appearing that Mr Robins entries were ijuito as numerous its hers Went to the rcmplo II I to l get rl her melon uonts being 28 years oiult but hall no lea then to got married ostified Adams to Sitters tlio I marriage Insure in i Jnmiar of the 1caie 1881 Mis I I mmix Ilallll testified that her sister Kato had livid with her in 1831 I i also as to the October visit of th it year So did Miss Ilo Smith another sister Similar corroborative ov idenco was given hy Mrs iunuuy I Cordon auothir sister who was aC tint pirtj Mrs Robins ov Idenco was with regard re-gard to Kates cmploment at tbo said store Never saw Ilassitt visiting Kate at tho store Mr AVilson had known defendant since Illill till 1881 when ho witness succeeded suc-ceeded him us selling clerk In August SSI I defendant camo to Logan on tithing business j it was tlio middle of the iiontli On cross examination witness admitted that tithing accounts weio IIIIV i OInIInlU i i AMI 11 c u i vu IHvid Clnllltli testified to liassott hav lug taken ins mials regular at witness istatiriut in Silt Lake City from the mdtllo of ugnst 188 till 188 Cor roboritid hy Mrs Clrlllitli bun Oil itlnr testified that the defendant had loiidid with him from April 188 for over a year bung quite rigular A Iilton I mghlwatiliman at tho Silt Lake I Tithing Ollici testified tint the defendant bid bad a 1 bed at slid ollico slept there all tutu timo every night from April 1881 to lanmrv 18SO 18SOMisiuna Caidon piopnetrcss of tile Cicbo Valle Hottsp Iorin tcstilied to 1ashplls stain at her place m August 1884 two or three lays passing tint mglits Ihore I j hal no lad with him 01 visiting him 1 15 Cardon and Mrs Harriet Robins give some unimportant evident and the counsel rested The case Wet ndouincil until 10 otloek in llio morning |