The times., 1897-06-04
Mr.. BRUNHAUs NOT GUILTY.
Jury in the Civil Rights Case
Renders Its Verdict.
LAWYER JONES WILL APPEAL
Coloreti Customer of the Lunchroom
Keeper Not Satisfied with the
Deiiheration-Rig of Caterers
to Discriminate Between Patrons.

The jury in the Brunhaus civil rights
case, after half an hour OF deliberation
yesterday afternoon, brought in a verdict
ofnot guilty Thomas l.. Jones, the colored
lawyer, who had the cahrge brought
against Mr.. Brunhaus, alleging That he
refused 70 serve the complainant witt.
food in the reom generally used 10y his
customers, declares that he will take the
case up TO tile court of appeals.
The proceedings yesterday began with
the argument Of Counsel Cook, who opeued
the case for the defense. Mr.. Cook pref
aced his argument by reading the law
under which the Information was filed,
concluding with the penalty, which provides
for a fine OF S100, forfeiture of license
and defarrment from entering into the
same business for year after such for
felture.
~ emphasize the penalty" continued the
attorney, $50 that the jury may see to
what they make my client liable should
they bring i'll a verdict OF guilty. The
law is the most unjust one on the statute
book j. provides for the entire destruction
of his business if convicted, and prevents
him and everyone employed by him, from
earning his living by conducting an eating
house for q period of upward of year
The lawyer then called attention TO the
evidence submitted. 1t was conclusively
shown, he said, that MIR. Jones had NOT
been refused food in the establishment Of
the defendant On the contrary, it was
because Mr.. Jones wanted a cleaner room,
& more magnificent room, and 1t was his
whim which caused the case to be brought
before the court.
The question resolved itself TO whether
the defendant had q right 10 direct his
business in a reasonable manner or whether
he should allow such men as Jones, ONeal,
and Erockenhorough To run his business for
him.
Counsel Nell also laid stress upon the
severe penalty provided for in the law
The question further arises, he said, as 10
Mr. Jones purpose in visiting the eating
house The prosecuting witness himself
had testified that he expected TO be re-
fused. He knew what the law was, and he
went into the eating house to see It vim
lated WAS he hungry when he gave his
ORDER" Mr.. Reilly went on 10 say. Did
he testify on tie stand that he had gone
somewhere else to satisfy his hunger?
Another question arises regarding the
authority which Mr. Brunhaus may exercise
in his own business Mr. Erun haus had said
that he didn I like Mr.. Jones rhysiognonsy.
AND has he not the right, If man with
whom he would not care To have his fam
ily associate and there are such nlen-to
ask that man to take place where his
other customers viii not he forced to sit
down beside him?"
Assistant District Attorney Pugi, In
closing the case for the Government, called
the attention OF the jury to the fact
that while the judge, the jury and the
prosecuting attorney himself might have
their own opinions as TO the need foI the
law under which the defendant was
charged. still the law was there and the
jury was called upon to decide from the
testimony whether MI Brunhaus had
violated it or not As to the violation
there was no question whatever. There
we're two witnesses who testified that
the room To which Mr.. Jones was referred
was very dirty and unfit for any one to
eat in. Mr. Brunhaus might be physioa-
nomist and able to decide Mr.. Jones
Responsibility from the shape of his head
but it was a question whether the law
could take cognizance of this abnormal
talent of the defendant.
''The law In this case Mr.. Pugh went
on to say, ''does not apply to white or
colored. 1t is properly called the civil
rights law. 1t means that all of US, you, l
or anybody, can claim our civil rights by
criminal process.
NOW, am here, in the face of criticism.
perhaps, to do my sworn duty and ask for
the enforcement OF the law as it appears
upon the statute book and not as you or
might wish. And i call upon you to do
the same. To enforce the law as you have
sworn 20 DO. You can take no cognzance
OF the fact that the man who applied TO
the defendant was colored. The law does
not mention white or colore1. 1t merely
commands that when any person. black or
white, who is respectable and well be-
haved, applies for accommodations, he
must be served, and in the room in which
the general public are ordinarily enter
tanned. And the defendant himself testi-
fies that the room in which he refused 10
supply Mr.; Jones was the one in which
the public was ordinarily served.
''Mr. Jones was well behaved and re-
spectacle at the time. as three reputable
witnesses have testified. But the counsel
for the defense have told you that Mr..
o'Neal, whom they characterize as drunk.
was served while Mr.. Jones was refused
That is 10 say, they would rather serve
a drunken white man than respectable
colored man"
Incharging the jury, JudgeKimballstate
that in nutshell the question for them TO
decide, was whether the small room to
which Ny. Jones was directed was one in
which the defendant ordinarily served his
guests.