Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-05-29

CIVIL RIGHTS IN RESTAURANT.
The Case % George W. Harvey In she |
Criminal Court.
Yesterday, In the Criminal Court. Judge Mont !
gomery, the TRIAL OF George W. Harvey for vioat-
ing the eatng-house law On refusing 70 serve q
coiored MANI, was resumed. Messrs Riddle and |
shiiington for the District and Mr.. Cook for the
defendant.
MI. Harvey testified In his own behalf that De-
called 70 Hewlett and curtis colored men, ana he
SAID "iet them wait" Knowing Hewlett 60 be a
taurant biiis ron his reputation nom S news
papers witness did not serve HIM
MI Riddle objected, saying that he did not pro-
p0sc saa' Inc party should be tried on newspaper
Mr.. Cook said 81 was matter Of public notority
ana cited articles In ThE STAR OF October 20 and
November II, which he had read.
M MI Riddle asked when The STAB had become evil
Mr. Harvey resumed ana said that be had ,nfor.
nation that Hewlett did not pay his bills arst
from the papers The STAR OF October 20 ana No
Hewlett got dinner and did not pay for il. After
seeing who they were he walked 70 the table and
asked Hewlett, What DO you want." Hewlett
none" and then he walked over 10 the bar, ana
Hewlett came over and asked II he was Mr. Har-
vey. Witness said that he was Mr.. Harvey, when
Hewlett replied THAT settles it, and left
On cross-examination witness said he cid not
know Dr. Curtis Colored men had been enter
tained there, Mr.. Wall among them. Thought IL
ought to be the rule In all nrst-class restaurants
not TO entertain colored persons, and IL In
his restaurant, but IL was not on account OF color
that he refused these men. lie did not know that
he would have entertained them anyway. He
could have entertained them In the pantry. lie
TOLD Hewlett that he had no fried oysters adding,
There's more ways OF killing Cat than by hang
ing him"
you did not remember the cat is said TO have nine
lives"
Witness repeated that he refused TO wait on
Hewlett because OF his reputation.
Mr.. Cook then put In evidence the articles In
THE STAB OF october 20 In reference 10 Mr.. Hew-
let's visit 10 MI French's cafe In the Washington
Market, and Of November IL as 10 MI. french's
trial.
VIM Harvey lclerll testified that he was present;
saw the parties come In; did not know them, and
was told who Hewlett was ana then let them SIT
supposing that when they got tired they would go
out. When his uncle came In witness called his
attention TO them and be went 10 them. de cor
roborated his uncle as TO the latter part OF the
affair.
ON cross-examination witness said the reason
he did not have Hewlett served was that he did
not want 70 take the responsibility OF serving
man 80 cents worth who would say, am pay you
Mr.. ii. L Ellwood lbarkeepen corroborated the
Mr.. French testified that after the occurrence at
his restaurant with Hewlett he informed Mr.. Har-
yey oft
For the District. E NJ. Hewlett was recalled and
tesired that as they We're leaving Dr. curtis said:
any disturbance"
ON cross-examination witness said he had called
DIR. curtis testified that he said nothing about
oysters TO the waiter.
For the defendant, MI. Harvey testified that he
did not have any conversation with DIR. Curtis
and VIM Harvey testified that he heard no con-
verSaton with him.
JUDGE NoNTGoNERY's DECISION ON THE Law POINTS
This morning the trial was resumed, and the
court after sending out the jury, gave his decision
fhn
said that he had not been able TO reach a conclu-
sion that was free from serious doubt He was,
however, satisfied that Congress intended to
fer on the legislature the fullest legislative power
with certain express restrictions. declared by
the Court In General Term In Roach agt. Van Ris-
wick (MeA. NJ, 113). But" he says, las dis
t1nctly declared In the same case. Congress could
not under the Constitution invest a local govern
ment in this District with general legislative
authority; but Congress could not, and, In fact,
did not, confer upon the legislative assembly
power 10 do more than may be done by the ordin-
airy municipal government and this doctrine is APP
proved in District OF Columbia agt Waggaman
"A Mackey, $3.50. / am also OF the opinion that
when a municipal bylaw Is enacted In pursuance
OF the implied power which exists In the munich
patty, such bylaw must be reasonable and In har-
mony with the general principle OF the common
law. But this court held In the Waggafnan case
that, when the municipality is empowered by ex-
press legislative grant " enact an ordnance the
courts can only consider In passing upon IL the eX-
tent OF the grant am not now satisfied that the
act or the assembly, under which this prosecution
was Instituted, is obnoxious TO the provisions OF
section 46 OF the organic act which declares that
no act shall embrace more than one subject, and
that shall be embraced In the Title Neither am
fully satisfied that the act Is unwarranted by the
creative act OF Congress 1 entertain 30 much
doubt on these subjects that esteem IL my duty
to let the verdict or the jury be taken upon the
| facts and upon the following Instructions. DO
this with the distinct purpose however, OF enter
tanning or certifying motion In case OF convic-
/ tlOn, and motive wholly uncommitted To any Do
| sitlon."
THE INSTRUCTIONS 10 THE JURY.
For the guidance OF counsel In their arguments
| he read the charge he had prepared for the
jury. After stating the theories OF the
prosecution AMI the defense, the judge
advises II they satisfied from the evidence that
the theory OF the prosecution is correct that Hew
| faith &C., and was refused accommodation they
should convict; but II, on the contrary, they are
not satisfied that Hewlett was respectable, we'll
behaved man they should acquit. Again, II you
are not satisfied that Hewlett went there In good
faith and with the bona fide intention and expec-
and going his way without trouble or disturbance;
and II YOU are satisfied that the defendant had
reason TO so apprehend and did so believe then the
defendant should be acquitted" He repeated, ''ff
you are satisfied that Mr.. Hewlett was a well be-
haved and reputable person; that he went 70 Mr..
with the honest expectation OF ordering, getting,
eating and paying for without trouble or disturb
ance uhe same as any other customer, what he
got and that he was not, In fact, spying upon the
defendant trying To make up or establish q case
and had no such expectation or Intention, then
things then the case Is not made out, and you
should acQu1t. In view OF the testimony, think
the case should be determined upon what took
place arter Mr.. Harvey himself arrived there that