The times., 1897-06-03
CIVIL RIGHTS IN COURT
Lawyer Jones' Charges Against
Caterer BrunhauS.
WITNESSES FOR BOTH SIDES
Colored Complainant Alleges the
Lunchroom Keeper Refused 10
Serve Him Defense
Maintains the Right to Discrin.
inate-Great Interest in the Trial.


citizens, both white and colored, in the
outcome of the Jones civil rights case. be-
gun yesterday morning before a jury in
the district branch of the police court.
as it does the right of an eating-house
keeper OF Of any other dispenser of public
service, to refuse To serve customers on
account of color or for any other reason he
may see fit.
Mir. Jones, who Is the complaining wit
ness in the case, and who is a colored
lawyer practicing in the police court, had
suit brought against Henry Brunhdus,
keeper Of an eating saloon at No. BIZ
Sixth street northwest, on the grounds
that the latter refused TO serve him,
well-behayed, respectable citizen, with
food such as he usually served in the room
set apart for the reception OF customers.
This act, IL is alleged, was an infractIon Of
the civil rights law of June 10, 1873. III
convicted Nj Brunhaus will be Liable To a
fine OF 500, the confiscation of his eat
ing-house license and prohibition from
conducting an clearinghouse for year
after conviction.
Attorneys Cook and Reilly represented
the defense, while Assistant District ttor-
ney Pugh conducted the case for the Gov
erninent. The hearing con sumed the whole
afternoon, and Mr.. Pugh had just made
the opening address for the Government
when a continuance was taken until %
o'clock this morning.
When the jury were being impanelled
Lawyers Reilly and Cook challenged Messrs.
Gray and Giles, the only two colored men
called, who were thereupon excused. and
others called in their stead Attorney
Reilly then stated to the court that
the defense desired TO withdraw the de-
nurrer previously submitted and TO plead
not guilty
Mr. Jones was the first witness called
for the prosecution.
The waitress looked at him in wonder
ment, and after minute said that he could
not be servedin that room, but must 90 TO
a little side room, which she designated DIS
kitchen He looked into the room and OBJ
served that it was very dirty, and that the
tablein it was filled with unwashed dishes
and dirty table linen. He then left the es-
tablishment
Hercturned within few hours tits time
accompanied by Mr.. Eugene O'Neal He
was again refused and went out.
why did you take Mr.. O'Neal with
you the second timer" asked Attorney
Reilly on eross-examination.
II wanted corroborative evidence"
You claim to be d respectable person,
Mr.. Jones?"
II don't claim TO be l am
Weren't you expelled from your church
some time before you went into this place
| after a protracted meeting of the congre-
gation?"
/ District Attorney Pugh objected to this
question, and the objection was sustained
| by the court, who remarked that they
didn't want to go into side issues
But we do, your honor interjected
Attorney Cook we propose to show that
MT Jones misconduct was a matter of
public knowledge, and that our client, act
ing on this knowledge, refused to sell
him" Attorney Cook then noted an ex
ception t. the ruling of the court.
Mr. Brockenborough, a colored special
| policeman, testified that he also went
into the lunch room on the day in ques-
ton, and that the waitress refused to
serve him in the general dining-r0om.
The first witness for the defense was
Prof George S. Waters, who testified
that he had often eaten in the room into
which MI Jones had refused to go. The
larger room, however, was the general
dining room He had not been in the
smaller room recently, nor had he seen
anyone else eating in C.
The evidence given by Lawyer Eugene
O'Neal, who was summoned by the de-
fense, was somewhat Of a surprise, as
It was very much in favor of The prose-
cuton He testified to the facts sub
stantially the same as the prosecuting
witness, Jones, and when he had con-
cluded Attorney Cook asked
Were you drunk or sober at the time
M O'NeaI?''
II was perfectly sober"
But persisted the attorney, with n
look OF panied surprise upon his face, did
! not YOU tell Mr. Reilly and myself in my
! office that you were drunk at the time or
you would not have done what you did?"
oh" answered the witness, Il told
| you a good many fairy tales in your office.
When you and Mr. Reilly were pumping me
! saw that you had discovered several
| nare's nests and thought / would help
| you along
Mir Rrunhaus took the stand il his
own behalf and stated that when Mr.
| Jones came into his place ON the day
in question he gave his order and sat
| down at the counter in front. The wit
| ness told hin. that he could not eat there,
but designated Il private room which was set
aside FOR private purposes.
''WIlI you state why you ordered Mr.
| Jones into this roon?"
ayes: | sized him up as a hard looking
customer, and thought l had right TO
| place him where pleased
After silis warrant was sworn out was
| there an effort TO compromise the matter
| for money considerations
Mr. Pugh objected to this question on the
ground that Mr.. Jones could not be con-
nected with this attempt.
''Your HONOR said Mr.. Reilly, ''this ques-
tion is very material, as propose 10 show
that my client was approached by two law
yers, who stated that they might fix up
the matter tor him If he would give up a
certain SUN OF money
Mr.. Pugh' smotion was sustained and the
witness leftthe stand Attorney Reilly now
took the stand hmsefto rebutMr O Meals
| testimony as to thelatter S condition at the
time of the eating-house keepers refusal.
lie testified that several days subse-
quent to the filing of the papersin the case,
| Mr.. O'Neal spoke to linn in his Office. say
ing that he was drunk.
Attorney Cook corroborated the evidence
| given by the other counsel for the defense.
This closed the testimony in the case,
! and before arguments were submitted to
| the jury the defense read to the court
a number Of prayers as to how the jury