The Lafayette gazette. [volume] (Lafayette, La.) 1893-1921, 1893-04-29
Jim Grow Car LAW.

Judge Thcard, of the civil district court in
New Orleans, decided Wednesday the case
OF Isaac A. Broussard vs.. the Louisville,
New Orleans and Railroad company. The
! suit was originally for $40. 900 DANA ges for
| having been elected from OF the defend
, ants trains, but by rcnittitur the demands
was afterwards reduced to $4,000. The
plaintiff, who is the sheriff of the parish of
Lafayette, claimed that in June, 1891, he
purchased two first-class tickets for passage
| from New Orleans to Ethel, for the purpose
insane asylum at Jackson under order of
! court. The plaintiff chained his colorcd
charge in-rhe SNORING dc vision OF the coach
saesigned>to negroes, and plaintiff, being UNI
we'll, seated himself in the non-smo!;in:, div
ison of the same coach. The conductor rc..
qucsted him to go into the smoking car, and
ordered in the alternative that he go into the
coach set apart for white passengers only;
This plaintiff refused to do, and demanded
| the right to go into the white coach and to
| carry his colored prisoner with him, which,
request was declined by the conductor on.
the ground that it made no difference
whether he sat in the negro coach with the
negro, or the negro sat in the white coach
| with him, but the conductor again informed
him that the smoking car was common place
of resort provided for both races, and that
if he S O desired he could sit in the smoking
Car with his prisoner.
Plaintiff insisted upon his right as sheriff
| not to be separated from his prisoner, where
upon the conductor informed him that the
| law made no exception in s,ch Il case and
that the he must either obey the law or &c,
| off the train. Plaintiff first elected to
leave the train voluntarily, bat upon refec
| ton told the conductor to eject him at his
peril. The train by that time had reached
the Illinois Central junction within the city
| limits, and, usual. had come to a stop,
when the conductor, without violence or
undue force, elected plaintiff and his pri-
soncr from the train. The next day, at the
pers onal request of the attorney general and
the local counsel of the company, plaintiff
was permitted, favor to ride in the negro
coach with his charge.
Judge Theard Wednesday held that under
act'No- III of 1890 railroad companies in
the State arc compelled upon penalty
there IN imposed TO provide equal and Sc
parate accommodation for white and colorcd
passengers, whom they contract to carry, and
that no person can be permitted to occupy
seats in coaches other than the assigned
to them account of their race, and if 4
person refuse to accede such rule the
railroad official can refuse to carry him. The
law is plain, and no exception is made il,
favor of sheriff officer of the law in
charges of prisoner. Any argument or
Inconvenience resulting must be addressed
to the Legislature. There being other
means of transportation than that by rail,
plaintiff cannot claim that the enforcement
of the law as to him would amount to de-
feat of justice. In the absence of special
contract made at the time the tickets were
purchased that he would not be separated
from his charge, he has of
plant against the company. Judgement is,
therefore, given for defendant.