New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-06-15
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, JUNE IA. 1873.
superior District Court.

Superior District Court.
Richard Prichard VS.. Charles Clinton,
Auditor, and Antoine Dubucler. Treasurer.
Plaintiff alleges il his petition that he Is
the holder OF two warrants amounting TO
1856 sc. signed By James Graham; that
the Auditor refuses to authorize the Treas
urer 20 pay the warrants; that they are an
terror in date to other warrants now being
paid illegally By the Treasurer. 1nilnc-
ton prayed fo- and granted. IetUrnab:e
June Ii.
State ex rel. J. J. Hayes vs. city os New
OrIeans-The court dissolved the lnJunc-
non restraining the defendants from allow
ing small -p3x patents 70 be sent to Tie
hospital OF Dr.. Antoux and paying Tor the
same.
First District Court.
State vs. Castor Larch.-Assault and
battery. Sentence 3. fine CT twenty-tour
hours IL Parish Prison.
State VS.. Edward Shannon. Larceny.
Sentence. eleven months hard labor Il
Stats Per.tentiarV.
State vs.. Margare. Suil:yan.-Larceny.
Nolle prosequi entered
State vs.. Louis Voter re-
ceiviny stolen property. Pea OF not guilty;
State Va. Aieci Harrisou-Assaui. and
battery. Plea Of not guilty.
State W.. John Hol,iday.-Assauita and
battery. Plea of not guilty.
State Va. John MiIler-Assault and
battery. Plea of not guilty.
State VS.. Hannah Florence and Annie
Sullivan.-Assaul. and battery. Plea OF
not guilty.
State vs.. John Lewis.-Assaui. and
battery. Plea o: not guilty
State VS.. Louisa Wilson Assault and
battery. Plea Of not guilty.
State vs.. Calestine Wa.ker.-Assault and
battery Pea of not guilty.
State VS.. L. Tayior.-FaIse imprisonment.
Plea of not guilty.
State We. S. Shut. Charles Vincent and
c. Thibodeaux.-Faise Imprisonment. Pea
Of not guilty.
State We Henry Misunderstanding
dweling,hoEse. and larceny. Plea OF not
gully.
State vs. Charles Wilson and Francis
Martin Felonious.y entering store and
larceny. Plea Of not guilty.
Fourth District Court.
Jacob Hawkins vs.. New Orleans Print
ing and Publishing Company. Jury EN-
paneied, and documentary evidence OF the
plaintiff opened.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cuilom has rendered the following
important decision:
Josephine Decuir vs. Joseph 6. Ben
Subtitle III ILLS CdSC 10 a AhAN
Of color, genteel in her manners, modest
IN her department. neat in her appear
ance and quite fair tor one of mixed blood
Her features are rather delicate, with nose
which indicates q decided prepOnderance
of the Caucasian and Indian blood. The
blackness and length OF the hair which Is
straight, confirm this idea. She was never
a slave. nor is she the descendant OF a
slave. Her ancestors were always free as
IN J,,,, oil ,Na0 nv
those who knew her. She lett this city on
or about the twentieth day of July, A. ID.
1872, for the purpose of returning to the
parish of POinte COUpee, where she has re
sided in welded life for many years. taking
passage on board the steamer Governor
Allen, then engaged in the business OF
common carrier OF passengers and freight,
and plying between this city and the city
of Vicksburg. There is no dispute about
these facts. Mrs Decuir applied for and
was refused a cabin passage. cabin Or
sleep ing apartment was offered her
il what is called and known as the bureau,
which on the Governor Allen. is situated
below the berths and floor assigned to the
white passengers. The evidence shows that
this bureau is kept exclusively tor people
OF color. and that there il not so much
comfort. nor so many facilities tor seciuslon
as on the cabin floor above il. Indeed.
that it is very uncomfortable for lady,
PARTICULARLY. Mrs. Decuir declined to
accept the accommodations offered her.
and passed the night during which she was
On board. sitting in her chair IN the rear
part OF the boat, in what is known as the
recess. A lady's cabin was asked for. but
the detendan: peremptoriiy refused TO
permit her to occupy One. He says that Ii
halt the rooms ID the ladles capin hao
been vacant, she could not have had one.
On her arrival at the Hermitage, her point
of destination. she paid Tor a first class
cabin passage. She now Institutes this suit.
alleging these facts: aud SAVING further,
that the defendant did On that trip OF his
said boat, refuse to her, On account OF her
race and color, and for that reason only,
the equal rights and privilege. accorded to
the white passengers on the boat. That
she suffered for Want of rest FROM inability
TO sleep, and from exposure: She
also alleges that the mQrtllcat.qn
and mental anguish which she was thus
compelled 10 undergo, justly entitle her to
exemplary damages in the sum of $4,000.
L. is useless to examine the exceptions sep
arately, as they may be passed upon in con-
| nection with the merits of the case. 1t will
suffice to say that the Supreme Court of
this State. in the days of Judge Martin, has
declared that the Flaw law gives compen-
sation for mental suffering occasioned by
acts Of wanton injustice and that this
opinion had not only been proclaimed by
Judge Story. but has latterly been reiter-
ated by the present Supreme Court of Lou
isiana. The United States courts in admi-
rally have nothing to do with this case.
See 20 An, 1872, case OF Averill VS.. the
stea,ne: Alabama Belle and owners. ROacl
ct al. VS.. Chapman ct al, % How. Reports.
p. pa. "A contract between passenger
and the master OF a vessel for the passage
is personal one, not cognizable in the ad-
miralty." Brightly's Dig, vol. |, p. Ii. art.
i2s. On other points raised by the eXcep
tons, the case of keene VS.. Lizard, , L.,
43l, and 6 L.. 81 1920. will be found peril
nent and also the case Of st. Arnaud vs..
Lizard, L., pa. For the purpose. of this
investigation the constitutions of the United
States and Of this State. and the laws en-
acted in obedience thereto, having fixed
the unlimited citizenship OF the col
ored race in the United States, l must
exam: inc its merits, as if Mrs. Decuir were
a purely white LADY suing for her rights.
Courts can not make distinctions where
the law does not. and awaiting myself Of
the strong language of Lord Kenyon. they
are bound and shackled by certain rules.
from which they should not depart Coun-
sel has furnished q engthy brief, IN which
he endeavOrs to show that II the plaintiff
was not treated as the white ladies were.
she can not complain. because she did mot
make a tender in advance of the amount Of
money" which white ladies paid. This is
a mere technicality which can not be per-
mitted TO defeat legal right. and more
especially where. as il this class of cases,
the law does not require it to be done. The
statute OF 1869. first section, declares that
when such person shall, on demand, re-
fuse or neglect to pay the customary fare.
etc 1t was. therefore. the duty OF the de
teniant to first make the demand of the
customary fare before he could. under the
law. deny to her the rights and privileges
accorded to white ladies On board his boat.
Blu. gain. it would have been entirely use
formal fandar of the cl1