The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-20
Superior Court.
Before Hon. Judge Hosscn

EXPELL NO OOLOkhD CLER6YAAN FROM THE CITY
CARs-yERDlOr FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
Dio. Is.-7h REQ J. W. PenssngsOn a. 7hs .Stsn Ave-
nus Rasivoad Company -This case, which has been
trial for three days. summed up this mornns BY Mr.
Hutchps the defendants who stated hst the company
were Wiling TO pace more cars for coored people On
their road required and would doubtless open all their
cars for their accommodation the jury rendered ver
dict against them In this case He cor tended thaa the do
iendants not bound 10 carry coored people IN oil
their cars lie referred the constitution Of tha Uned
States to show that there line Of demArcaon be-
TWEEN the two races and asked the jury coiored man
would be permitted to ait 1t the public table OF the st.
Nicholas any Of principal hotels. Mr.. Huichins
also stated that the number Of provided by the do
ieDdan for the coored people larger In proportion
% population than the numoef for white people
Mr. Phelps summed up for plaintiff, and commended that
npgtcp from the cars.
lhe Judge, In charging the jury said:rhe question is
gers admitting their general Obligation TO transport
Their route oil Who apply for that purpose they have
Ss On Ss % o.
raj rule or regulation the colored people ~ distinct
Glars from the privilege Of seats certain Of their cars,
while they appropriate especially to their other
OF the same description and give them st nding accom-
mediation In all their cars. In other words, whether
these oefeDdsnis carriers Of passengers
usd in adopting and acting upon the rule regulation
by which they exclude coorec people from all portions
81 their cars except he front PLATFORM lille they II tine
hscb and N MI nsr,s Of which thew hv Inc sama
regulation equal right with the whites. 1t is quss-
has 20 YET been NO adjudication. AZ an abstract
prorosition Il ia one OF great nicely and difficulty
INC sens,. rule O .s..oS before 70
nkd by the plaintiffs that the commou carrier
may lawfully exclude from his conveyance dis.
orderly prisons, and such a. would by their conduct
ar ID, perhaps fucn wound by their VIGOROUSLY bad
character give offence ana dcomors 70 the other pas
senges That v NOT the present case For aught that
appeNs this pa'nih IL man Of the highest yespecta
billy. Nor II the question embarrassed by the circum
stance OF the having been received into the car
fare while occupying n,ess IN inc nie,9r win saca
consent, ID ELMER OF wnicn cases would not perhaps
nave peen awIui 70 oAvo exciaoeu ~ aniess ne oaa
custom vas TO direct ccored person on mounting 'ae
car pass tnfoogn 70 me iron. aaotm ana tnere
10 the are here i no that de-
msnoeo or paid NOT u the question II, wnetner tne
psmul, NOT otEg aoe 70 procure ~ one
~ reason OF such wsnt Oh accommodation escwnere TO
take Biz sest ID this particular car, for there IL no pre-
commodahd Ia one OF mose care, and the evidence u
that nc was exprety told BY the conductor that one
OF NOSE cars was sne second oehind and ina, he az
petfy fefused 70 qut his eeat on the fround that he
had an equal right With every one else 70 remain In that
car In ~ncn nc was seated But tue question 10 really
narrowed down to TINS mad no me general sht 70 SIT In
notw thetandipg the regulation OF the company TO the
contrary ren WIN perceive gentlemen ,ns. 10 view o.
very serious question The principle which u involves
bias equal application 10 hotel Keepers omnibus propre
this company obliged by io-ce Of law, 70 admit color
ed people 10 their cars, ndbcrminstey with the wnes
sve spy room n bis house % coSrsd man
who may apply Tor H. or TO I'D nit coored people 10 seats
AZ the rpb'ic table pe'scrmnatey With the wtitrfof
this latter however there may well be doubt though
the former copse quer CO may be ndispaable common
carrier has 70 prescribe
rules and regulations for ihe OF h,s business
Cdaiia In
,nrcsts 1be right Of ctz sns {, be carried II not
absolute N 10 su:h Reasonable Yegua iona as the
carrier M "A above ssted And ger who
yen.e !. 10 subm,t 40 ble aud rule
nav be :. ouYed 10 leave the ouyeysnca and II ne re-
oh,y.S ~ rsrry : nssrnn =, = nssseoser though he
NAV 40 far al bic ec neral deporent u concerned be
unexcepou abe -nd be may tender his iareJ Il the OBJ
"a and de,,cn III n ptra "a 10 interfere with and pre-
udce their Iuterets II has been said by one OF the
s,tI rushea lur,t, hst m Ger i uot bound
10 or terrain and loci the OF rival bouse whose
there IL 10 deccy sWsv bis oustomsrs Toere
mn,t sc tome Emste 10 The General Jis hi of The c
the general obgauon OF the carrier Tho carrier
moi obsed by reason Of the Al obsor 10 pa
every psrsou wnen by SO doing ne NAV seriously
biz business Ana for the parpose OF determining the
eject uron ihe capls busirc,s ana interests Of admit
ting backs into lheir cars indiscrimnaely with the
whites IS matter Tor ysur consideration The question
slways H. whether IN tie particular instance the CT
eIrton Of The psssc pser IN reasonable and proper;
aud The exclusion was by virtuc OF . rule o.
regulation then whether such rule or regulation 4,
rs,opabie and proper Tbs, win DO the nrst
question for you 10 pass upon: were the rules and
regulations In question reasonable spd prorcr under all
the ciIcufpstapcesY the company had right 10 pre-.
scribe them they were reasopsble ana no passenger
has a right to violate them you anal be Of opinion
that they were reasonable and proper then on their
beng made know 10 plain he an bound 10 nave sub
niti.d 10 them. his duty 10 have lels the car
when 90 10 do or 10 have en- hs stand on the
rc nj choice between the two la vtns been
s,ytn 10 him On bis refusal 10 do so II was awfui for
the q pductor 10 sec him, usirg only suca force a.
nsht be recsssary Tor that purpose II By reason OF bis
espanoe rjpry occurs 10 him the comnxny are not "a
sponsible II the regulation was ressonsbe and proper
one spd was made IN avn 70 The psnpf lot which no
tice the evidence leaves no eoabs) the plsutia was
bound 10 have sub alted and any injury ne NAV have
received in resisting forms no rrcun1 for claim for
DAMAGE The force afed IN removing "a not more than
necessary. this reasonable and proper regu-
at,op then the plsnta Was not Iund 10 submit TO H.
eut was eniicd to hrs seat and The election was IN
lawful, aud tho defendants asc liable In ia mages In
deerm ming tho question Of the roasopableness OF
this REGULATION you must take all the do
yeops the Into confederation aud tbs probable
effect upon the business and interests OF the company
iron allowing blacks an equality 90 passengers with
whites. fhai efnbarrHss you with any comments on