New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-24

Jury ordered; that Judgment be rendered
IN his favor, and against Bidwell, for the
sum of $4,000 and costs of suit.
The answer of the defendant is a general
denial of all the facts and allegations con.
tanned in plaintiffs petition. The case was
tried before jury.
At the trial plaintiff offered evidence to
prove what had occurred between him and
Owens, the doOrkeeper of the Academy of
Music on the evening of the seventh of
March, and especially that the said Owens
committed an assault and battery on him.
Defendants counsel objected to the evi.
dence. as the petition contained no allega-
ton that Bidwell could have prevented the
acts of Owens but did not do so. The court
sustained the objection 80 far as to allow no
evidence of the alleged assault and battery,
but overruled the objection to the evil
dence showing the refusal of admission to
plaintiff. The jury failed to find a verdict.
and after its discharge defendants counsel
moved to continue the case for the purpose
of impane.ing another jury to try the
same, claiming, in support of their motion,
that the second section of the act No % OF
the acts of 1871, requiring the court i'm
mediately to decide the case without fur
Their testimony, argument or delay, Is in
conflict with the seventh amendment OF
the constitution of the United States,
and with articles 6. 10, ITO and | IA of the
constitution of the State of Louisiana. The
motion in behalf of the defendant, after ar
gument, was overruled, and the section
two of the said act was decided to be con-
stitutional. The case Immediately there
after, on motion of plaintiffs counsel, was
submitted for determination to the court
The evidence shows that the plaintiff is
native of this city, anu has resided here all
his lifetime; that he is captai ia the Me-
tropolitan Police, and the owner of consid-
cradle real estate: that on Saturday even
ing, March 7, 1874, accompanied by one
James Rierd0n, a white man, he went to
the door of the Academy of Music, walked
up to the box Office, when RierG on bought
two parquette tickets. and paid 81 for each
ticket. With the tickets RierGOn received
two slips of paper. each of WHICH desig
mated the numbered seat in the parquette
to which the holder was assigned. Rier-
don handed to plaintiff one OF the tickets
and one of the slips. On arriving at the
entrance to the parquette, the doorkeeper,
David Owens, allowed RierdOn to enter,
but when plaintiff presented his ticket,
Owens refused him admission; that plain
tiff asked Owens repeatedly the cause of
his exclusion, but could receive no other
answer than Look at your ticket, and you
will see why" Plaintiff demanded repeat
eddy to be admitted, but was as often re-
fused and finally departed with Rierdon.
Neither Owens nor any other person con-
nected with the establishment offered to re-
turn the price OF the ticket to its holder
1t is also shown that the plaintiff is re-
puted to be man of color, of good character
and sober habits, and that on the occasion
in question his demeanor was orderly and
peaceable: that the Academy Of Music is a
place of puolic resort, licensed by the
State and city.
The ticket held by plaintiff contains the
following printed inscription;
"Spalding & Bidwell's Academy of
Music. Admission ticket. Contract be-
tween the managers of the Academy Of
Music and the holder of this ticket: 1t is
agreed, and this ticket is sold with the IN
derstanding, that the management shall
have the right to refuse admission to the
holder upon returning the regular price of
the ticket"
The defendant testifes that on the even
ing referred to he was confined to his room
by sickness, and had been sick for several
days previously; that he had no knowl
edge whatever OF the matter which gave
rise to this action until the following Tues.
day, March 10, when he read the announce
ment of the case in the evening papers;
that if he had been there himself at the
time of the difficulty he would have made
up his mind to conform to the law; that if
INC Id " luC pIllutIA " VIC duulIl-
ted, he will admit him; that he has never
refused colQred man admission in his
lire, but on the contrary, he has ad
mitted them repeatedly.
On the CrOss-eXaminatiOn OF the deten.
dant he says the ticket held by the plain
tiff entitled the holder to seat
in private box, in what is known
as the Family circle for one dollar
admission that the family circle and other
t<1 =,
ored people, that committee OF coiored
people waited on him to get him to parti-
ton off place for their use, anu that they
selected that place; that he fixed it nicely,
carpeted it, etc; that they stated to him
that they wanted to be by themselves; that
that portion of the building is what is
known as the family circle; it is the circle
Immediately above the ''dress ciccle;' that
the price of admission to the family circle is
fifty cents, excepting the b. xes that have
been appropriated tor colored people, the
said boxes being one dollar each; that the
ticket held by plaintiff was sold that night
for that purpose, and is parouette ticket;
that the ticket held by plaintiff was not in
tended to be a family circle ticket; that
this ticket carries parties to that place
that he admits colOred persons into any
portion of the theatre if they desire to go
there that he has taken out license under
lAC VI luc law. Ilc stdtc5
that Owens was then and still is in his en-
plOyment. and is a courteous, gentlemanly
mar, who has been in defendants employ
ment for many years; that he has never in
structed Owens to eject any class of people |
from his theatre, and ne does not do it
unless he has some good reason.
From the Importance Of this case, affect |
ing as it does not alone the two citizens who
are plaintiff and defendant, but also the in
flfa = nn n1N ciS 6 = o
of Louisiana, and testing their right to ire
auent all places of public resort in common
with and on the same terms as white |
people, it is expedient that l should |
here quote the constitutional provisions and |
statutory enactments under and by which |
the status of the cOlored man has been
changed from his former abject and de- |
graded condition of political and legal dis
ability to complete and unqualified citizen |
provisions, and the enactments Hereunder, |
that this and similar cases are to be deter |
mined.
L. The declaration of independence and |
the first article of the constitution of Lou |
lsana proclaim that all men are created |
equal; that they are endowed by their |
Creator with certain inalienable rights |
that among these are life, liberty and the |
pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights |
governments are instituted among men. de-
irving their powers from the consent of the
governed.
=. The fourteenth amendment to the
OF the United States saws:
That all persons born or naturalized in the
United States and subject to the jurisdic-
ton thereof, are citizens of the United |
States and OF the State wherein they reside;
40 State shall make or enforce law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities
Of oitIvcns of no |
any State deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due process of
law, nor deny to any person within its
JURISDICTION the equal projection of its laws,