New-York tribune., 1869-03-11
THE COURTS.
,r p1ouTs OF coLoRED PERSONS.

THE RIGHTS OF COIOkED fEhSONS
Tn the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Ierm'
before Judge DAILY, the case OF Harriet NJ JacopS US
Tho Atlantic Navigation Company, was resumed ana
can rsrancis BARLOW summed up for the plaintiff.
DAILY then charged the jury to the effect that tne
whole case depended the obligation Of common car
rers who for their own private interest undertaRS, ~
carry passengers. and thus incur duy 10 G ipatory
uncn them 10 take and carry all VINO present
TO them for carnage ana are oNr %E or c 10 Pycop in FEW
NECESSARY distinctions, where the necessary arose ton
the business such as the case OF person win an bo
tous disease one who is personally offensive, or one "o
when applying grossly intoxicated In such % eaS1s
there right and duty to exclude those the
law imposes them tue opnEatOh 70 carr I,ape
who are Wiling Il, E 10 pay Of the passenger
rested in the regulations OF the company Ihey
naKo m LIS suTa es He nsanoed tho case of inn
Where Though the traveller had the right OF enteTta% %
Mani tbe room In which he was TO be lodged, and tne
abIe at which he was to eat fixed by the Landlords
regulations He quoted at some length from tho ,ha,
syyana case decasd some S os.ened 70 one part
of a car and excluded from another The quesaUIh "a
dIstncon amounting TO separation between the cias
IvanIa case aIuded TO- the Court had decided that
o9Iored man might be assigned TO particular seat NOT
inferior in comfort and convenience TO Other sea az ~ n
car Judge DAILY quoted at some leng,Mh IN from 0neson was
one Of difference and not OF superiority or ti iulo
rority, and that there was suon ~ tort TudSe
DAILY said that such things might be written IN tno &
but the law were so positive and an wbo had
been the stand presented no dlstneton ~ h @
features heE re from what they had seen the
stand In this case, tho difficulty proDaDy arose Id o
th9t snpo 81 samson the steward who had been on
the stand there would have been no TICKET ssue y 'o
tic case First: As to what took place at the time OF
making tho cOnlTaC-the purchase OF the t
occnTd at the interview previous the purchase Of the
tickets between her and SAMPSON anu Ilnu. nnas
occnrred ON board the steamer The Court breny reviewed
the testimony on the two first quesons and In relation
TO the second charged that SIMPSONS testimony VIZ ~
true Il raised the question OF deceit on the part OF e
plaintiffs 1t showed that the palntih knew on t.e & us
tinotOn made between the two classes N!tnot tt ~
gueson OF intent to deceive there would De no % b
her right 10 recover IL the regulation eAiseu anu tu
defendants without being deceived issued ths ] uSE' ~
was "a dispensaton with the reguIaton WIN estion Of
the regulation itself il not 80 much quesu9n V
whether the separation WAS Just one IhG n
them public duties, bat FOR their private interest or
not necessary hat INC aesro ior ThaY were
carving on the business for their private interest ana
either BY @ 20 OK deS InS ey light by regulation
make a separation provided thN they SquiS IL
pshed the object OF thGr business @ ST n o 10 for
sired and which the applicants were WI,nh ~ Py yd
such prejudice must be suhcenty preNaos,' unu, ~
not universal attacmEE 10 & so IaeS The equal
itV Of accommodation must DO reasonable: IN
substantial mstesi wcre %u'n many ny fold in number
the other IL would be unreasonable TO say that tho smaller
MN
n wond destroy the profits or the business lie discussed
at some length the testimony rs 70 the dhetShoe OetWeeh
~ ~ 3t ou6 secondcass cabins. The regulation would,
hnweyer be dispensed with the company entered into
contract with cOlored person; ana on TINS nc Woud
hold that the entry contract on their part lnno
Gently was binding them. IL was FOR them, having
made regulation ascertain the facts with regard 70 IT,
and they must abide the consequences unless there
mad been deceit by tho plaintiffs and thus tho Intention
TO deceive by tho plaintiff became the material question
n this case There two stories TO what occurred
on the seamerNr. Cohens, which was That II was moth
ing more than the quiet putting of OF tho plaintiffs
party and tho plaintiffs, which II true showed that Mr.
Cohen's behavior very different from that OF the
class 10 which no described himself as belonging
This evidence went TO the question OF the amount
OF damages and related only 20 that In cases
OF breach Of contract OF this tnd tho measure OF DANA
ges was not the pecuniary value OF tho passage OF u
IIe illustrated this By tho Of passenger on cly
railroad who paid ak cents All the attendant cifcun,
stances the results OF the injury 20 personal dignity ana
the loss OF time which accompanied ~ might DO taken
into account fixing the damaRes In conclusion, tho
Judge asked the jury to lay aside though IL was dlcut
and In some almost lmpOssblt all sympathlcH tetI
ipgs and pTcjudces which they might have IN case IN
yoving matters which had been The subject OF much
political feeling aud give just verdict ON the simple
facts The Jury retired and after being out over tN0
hoI had not agreed The Court thon directed sealed
yAul,t.