Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-02-02
A TEST CASE
Which Excited Considerable Inter
est at Martins Ferry.
Justice Mitchell Holds That a RIM Pro-
prietor Can Eject a Person
at Any. Time.

Yesterday the case of Vim Bowman
versus Alexander Mckenzie, of the Excel.
sior Rink, was heard before his Honor
Squire Mitchell in the Council Chamber
of the city building at Martins Ferry. The
room wal crowded full, the old nailers and
other striking union men being particular
ly interested, as the case was q test as to
whether a rink owner could eject any one
he pleased from his premises. For q bet
ter understanding of the case it would b.
we'll to say that when the present nail
trouble originated, Msssra. Mckenzie and
Scarlot, proprietors Of the Excelsior Rink
expressed themselves in sympathy with th'
strikers, and svowed their intention o
allowing no blacksheep to enter thei
place OF recreation. AS long as James'R,
Hill, of the Eureka,
MADE 10 DISTINCTION
against the feeder ~nailers, none Of them
took occasion to make an effort to entei
the Excelsior. On Saturday night, Jan
uary %, Will Bowman. George Hall anG
David Paxton, all employees Of the Laugh
lin mill, went to the rink to try and gair
admission. From the testimony in the
case, it seems that they were not so anxious
to enter as they were to show people that
they could enter. Bowman went to the
ticket window and purchased three tickets
and turning to the door where Paxton and
Hall stood, called to them to come on
Mr.. Criswell, the doorkeeper, says he did
not recognize Bowman, but when Paxton
and Hall appeared he ordered them to
leave. The two mentioned above left
without any controversy, but Bowman
when ordered out by Mckenzie, refused to
60, and the latter
FoRCIBLY EJECTED HUN.
There was some little difference of opinion
among the witnesses as to whether Nc
Kinzie used more than ordinary force to
eject Bowman, but it was pretty clearly
shown that he did not. Mr.. George Dun
con, the attorney for the defense, made an
address to the court in which he cited and
produced the records Of a similar case tried
before the Supreme Court of Iowa within
the past month. where the Judge of the
court stated in his opinion that since the
skating rink is not an institution which is
either licensed or taxed by the public, and
since it is q private enterprise and the pro.
prietor ia elected to construct and main.
tain the same by himself, he has the right
to reject or admit
WHOM He CHOOSES.
The opinion further says that a man ma,
be objected to on account of the cut Of hi,
coat or the color Of his hair or without ar,
stated reason, or that he may be elected
at any time or under any circumstances at
the pleasure of the proprietor. He cited
other instances in defense of Mr.. McKen,
zie's position and made it quite clear ia
the audience that the plaintiff had moi
acted uplawfully. Bowman was not repre-
scented By counsel, but David Paxton acted
in that capacity, and his plea to the Cour.
proved that he had missed his calling ana
was ss well if not better fitted for the
study OF law than hat Of nail making.
The Justice after considerable thought on
the matter concluded to
DISMISS H CASE,
stating that the recent decisSoa Of the So.
preme Court OF Iowa in connection with
the o~ld.established principles of law, and
the testimony in the case would not war.
rant him in holding the accused 10 court
When the decision was made known, to-
rife applause filed the house, the audie c,
being almost entirely composed Of Urior
iron and glass workers..