OCR Text |
Show ONE BY ONE THEY GO. One by one the technical screens set up by the Saints to shield themselves from the consequences of their unlawful practices, are being swept away before the vigorous onslaughts of a faithful and tireless prosecuting officer. Another obstacle, ob-stacle, which long has stood in the way of the successful enforcement of the provisions pro-visions of the anti-polygamy law, has been removed from out the path of the court officers, and hereafter the men who practice plural marriage will go into court only to find themselves confronted by their legal and injured wives, who will be required to take the witness stand against them. In his ruling on Saturday last, in the case of Isaac Langton, charged with unlawful un-lawful cohabitation, the court held that unlawful cohabitation was a crime committed com-mitted by the husband against his legal wife, and that therefore, under our Btatute the wife could be made a competent com-petent witness against her husband without with-out his consent. This, ruling is one of great importance, in view of the number of arrests now being made here for the crime of unlawful cohabitation, and the additional means thus afforded of getting at the testimony needed to convict. In support of his ruling Judge Zane cites an Iowa case (called to his attention by Mr. Dickson) upon a statute which is substantially the same as the Utah statute, in which the court says: "Mrs. Sloan, the first wife, was allowed to testify in behalf of the State against the defendant's objection. Section 3G41 of the code provides that neither the husband nor the wife shall be a witness against the other, except in a criminal proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other. In our opinion, if the defendant is guilty of bigamy, he committed a crime against his wife. We think that she was a competent witness." Thus fortified, Judge Zane concludes his lengthy opinion in the following language lan-guage : I am of the opinion that when any man marries another woman while he has one wife living with him, and if he commits unlawful un-lawful cohabitation with her, that he forfeits for-feits that protection which the law gives him; he has forfeited and destroyed that confidence by his own criminal act; and he has no right, when he is prosecuted for such offense, to claim that the law shall preserve it sacred. I am of the opinion that the wife is a competent witness. The defendant Langton, however, was acquitted of the charge preferred against him. Had he been convicted, tho higher courts would have been asked to pass upon this ruling as they doubtless soon will be, when the same ruling is made in a case where conviction follows but it seems to le the unanimous opinion of the leading members of the bar that it will be held to be a sound decision. , |