Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1856-12-27
'TIss Penn nglom Case.

Some time ago, n colorcd preacher
Jsmcs W. Pennington, was put of from
the Sixth Avenue railroad ears. undcl
the regulations ofthc COMPANY that Nc
black man should ride within the car,
occupied by white men, but might
stand upon the platform with the iii
YER, or ride in the cars specially pro,i-
ded for co'orcd persons. He com
menced salt against the Company
in the Superior Court Of New York
City, to test the right Of the Hairoa.
Company thus to exclude persons OF
color from the cars occupied by whites
The case was made quite interesting
by the political feeling it excited among
Abolitionists. The ease WAS ably ar
gued by Mr.. Phelps for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Hutchinson for defendant.
The plaintiff
I. That The defendants, as common earn.
srs oil passengers, are bound TO adnIil ,nto
any car running upon their route ~ wh,cl
there may De room, any passenger Who pre-
'enis himself in accordance with the reas on
able regulations OF the Compar.
This ms Honor charged
2. That q regulation at Iht Comp"et ex
s.tding pass, nser, merely upon the ereuut
of his color, from any car upou then rcut.
in which there is room for him. ,s No, SuCl
srsasonabie regulation a ~. company hav,
Alright TO make, but is illegal I'D yoia
His Honor refused thus 10 ctarse.
II the Court declines 10 arce1s "a III.
proposi ion, then we say that The question
whether the regulation is reasonable OIL,
must be submitted TO The Jury.
This was charged.
The plaintiff " epts 10 he els, - H. -
far as il docs t"r cover these propositions.
The defendants su5mittei he following
points
1. IL. >e..hGA, =. a. cammut catri,
have the right 10 rrescrihe fra.o"abic Gl,s
AMI regulations Ia the 'rar srny' t',pn OF pas.
ssneers on their Railroad and Us -ucu eg'
ulations 10 make a distinction hetWeep
white persons and colorrd persons. aud 10
provide separa'c cars for esch
His honor refused ,hns TO cha.ss. ain.
IL TO he a question FOR the lury.
,. II the defendants in THIS action Law.
made reasonable rules and regulations for
the transportation Of co!ored p.rsons, lhef
have discharged their duty a. common cas
riers, and are not liable for this ac;iot.
This he charged.
;. The plaintiff was bound after notice
OF the rules and regulations of the CompA.
ny. 10 have quilted the INSIDE OF The car
and take place en- the front platform, o.
10 have left the car and taken pas sage on
one appropriated to the u.e of colored per
sons, which II is IN evidence was in near
proximity.
His Honor would so cherge IN case the
FIRST point was found for the defendants
!. That the contrac, of the defendants
- common carriers with the community
never extended beyond the furnishing of
three cars for the special use of colored
persons, and the privilege Of riding Oh the
platforms OF the other cars aud that as a
matter Of law the defendants are entitled 20
verdict upon the ground that there is 10
evidence that the plaintiff was excluded
hom either q colored car. or prevented
from taking place Upon platform Of any
Of the others.
This was refused. .4
The verdict Of the Jury under the
instructions of the Court was against
the plaintiff, and IN favor Of the right
Of defendant to make any regulations
ofthat character that should not amount
10 q total exclusion of colorcd persons
from the right to travel in ears.