Olive Ann Jones Farr was a plural wife of Lorin Farr. They married in February 1852. In November 1886, Lorin was indicated under the third section of the Edmunds Law. When Olive Ann was called as a witness, she proved herself to be a “difficult witness,” and often revealed her wit:
Do you claim Mr. Farr to be your
husband?
I do not know whether I do nor
not, it has been so long since he has lived with me.
As a result of the marriage with
Mr. Farr were there any children?
Yes, sir.
How many?
Seven.
What is the age of your oldest
child?
Twenty-five years.
Did you at any period of your life
live with Mr. Farr in the same house?
No sir.
Where do you now live, Mrs. Farr?
On the farm.
How many times has Mr. Farr been
up to the farm during the past year?
I don’t know; it has been only a
few times.
What brings him up there?
To see his business.
Has he ever remained there
overnight?
No, sir.
Have you not been at the table
when he dined there sometimes?
Sometimes he sits down with the
boys and I also sit down with him.
What position does he take at the
table?
Just where he happens to stop.
Do you recognize the marriage
relation between you and Mr. Farr as existing?
Yes, sir.
Can you state the age of the
youngest children in the family?
I think she is almost 18 years old.
Have you been away from hour home
during the past three years prior to the 24th of June last?
I have been back east.
When di you go east?
Early in the Spring of ’83.
Who went with you?
Mr. Farr and his daughter.
Did Mr. Farr go with you?
He went in the same train.
After a recess Olive Ann Jones
Farr was cross examined by Mr. Kimball.
You say you visited the east in
the spring of 1883?
Yes, sir.
How long were you gone?
I think about five weeks.
How did you come to go together on
your trip east?
Mr. Farr and his daughter were
going east and I concluded I would go with them.
Where was Mr. Farr doing?
To Vermont.
What was the object of his visit?
He went to see his friend.
Were you going to Vermont?
No, sir; I was going to
Connecticut to visit my friends.
Did Mr. Farr, about the time of
the passage of the Edmunds Law, have any conversation with you respecting the
passage of that law, or make any statement to you with respect to how he would
have to live with you or any of his wives?
Yes, sir.
What did Mr. Farr say?
The prosecution objected to this
question, and the objection was sustained.
Was there any change at the
passage of the Edmunds Law as to defendant’s living with you?
He never made any change because
he never lived with me for a long time before that.
Do you know what the repute has
been as to Mr. Farr’s living with more than one since the passage of the
Edmunds Law?
Yes, sir.
What is that repute?
That he has lived within the law;
that he has only lived with his first wife.
The prosecution then began to
question Ann Farr.
When you went east who bought you
ticket?
I gave Mr. Farr the money and he
bought it.
Who gave you the money in the
first place?
I came honestly by it sir.
But who furnished it? Did not Mr.
Farr?
I furnished some, and my son
helped me some.
Did Mr. Farr furnish you any
money?
No, he did not furnish me any
money.
You say that the reputation is
that Mr. Farr has lived with the law?
Yes, sir.
Can you tell what his reputation
is in the community as to his having more than one wife, living and undivorced?
It is reputed that he has, but that
he does not live with them.
Is it reputed that he has more
than one wife?
It is reputed that he has had but
that he does not now acknowledge them or hold them out as his wives.
Is it reputed that you are his
wife by the community?
I suppose it is reputed so.
Are not Sarah and Mary and Nicoline
reputed to be his wives?
I guess they are all reputed to be
the same.
Defense then asked:
This reputation is simply founded
on the marriage ceremony is it not?
Yes, sir.
Did he tell you at the passage of
the Edmunds Law that he would not recognize you as a wife?
Yes, sir, he has never
acknowledged me as a wife since that time.
The prosecution then resumed their
questioning:
Are you, then his wife now?
I don’t know; he has never given
me a divorce.
What form of declaration did he
make to you after the passage of the Edmunds Law as to his intention or determination?
He said that he has going to obey
the Edmunds Law; that he did not any more speak to me as his wife.
The defense then asked:
Did not Mr. Farr say that the law
meant business; and that if he had anything to do with you that meant
penitentiary?
Yes, sir.
(U.S. v. Lorin Farr, Case No. 901 [4th District Court, Utah
Territory, 1886]. Copies of transcript available in Lorin Farr Collection, BYU
Special Collections, In Amy Oaks Long, David J. Farr, and Susan Easton Black, Lorin
Farr; Mormon Statesman [Winslow Farr Sr. Family Organization, Inc., 2007], 137-40)
Lorin’s and Olive Ann’s granddaughter, Jennie F. Budge, recalled
that:
Grandmother was very witty.
During the days before the
manifesto, Grandfather Farr was arrested and cited into court for polygamy.
Grandmother was summoned into court as a witness. When the judge asked her who
served papers on her, she replied “Mr Grindstone”.
The judge said, “You don’t mean
Mr. Grindstone, you mean Mr. Whetshone.”
Grandmother replied, “They both
look alike to me”. The people in the court room caused a disturbance from
laughing.
When Grandfather was found not
guilty, some of the men clapped their hands and shouted for joy. This made the
judge angry and he fined those making the noise ten dollars each. Some of the
men said it was worth ten dollars.
Father got excused from school to
attend the trial. (T. Earl Pardoe, Lorin Farr, Pioneer [Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press, 1953], 349)
