The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-17

,Noss 1 ,snd q, ( or. pl l27,l 1 This motion
~, sy sSEg ~ ss sysh4 court 9AS'As same
After the motions for new trial and ar
rest Of Judgment were overruled, motive
of appeal to the court OF criminal appeals
was duly given and entered OF record
| (Tr., p 29.)
An opinion was filed and delivered June
| g. 1898 by the court Of criminal appeals
| the court Of last resort In Texas in all
| criminal matters. which affirmed the opin-
| ion OF the criminal district court OF Gal
weston county. Nass'
| motion for rehearing of the case was
filed June IS, 1898, by plaintiff in error.
| (Tr., p. 37)
The court Of criminal appeals delivered
a lengthy opinion upon the motion for re-
hearing, December T. 1898. overruling said
motion. Ctr. PIP. ss-4i)
Upon the 10Th day OF December, 1898.
writ Of error to the judges Of the court
OF criminal appeals OF the State of Texas,
issued out Of the circuit court Of tho
United States for the Eastern district Of
Texas.
The following are the assignments Of
error filed December 81, 1898, by plaintiff
In error:
Seth Carter, Plaintiff in Error vs. the state
OF Texas. Defendant in Error--Tn the
Court of Criminal Appeals of the State
OF Texas.
| And now comes the said plaintiff in err
ror. by his attorney. and makes the fol-
lowing assignment of error In the rulings
| and proceedings OF the court below, upon
which he relies, and expects to obtain a
reversal in the supreme court of the
United States. to-wit
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.
Because the court of criminal appeals
should have reversed the case because of
l he tn ri al t,rf In, tt,r
the defendants motion to quash the in
dictment. and to quash the panel of petit
jurors impaneled to try the case, the said
motions being made on the ground that
the jury commissioners appointed to select
the list of petit jurors from which the
panel was drawn which tried the plaintiff
in error selected no persons of color or
of African descent. known as negroes, to
serve on said grand or petit jury. but, on
the contrary, did exclude therefrom all
! persons OF color or of African descent
known as negroes, although consisting of
and constituting about one fourth OF the
population and of the registered voters in
said city and county of Galveston, and
although otherwise qualified to serve as
such grand and petit jurors. were exclud-
| ed therefrom on the ground of their race
and color, and have been so excluded from
serving on any jury in said criminal dis
| trict court for great number of years.
| WHICH Is d discrimination against the
| plaint1n in error, since he is a person of
color and Of African descent. known as a
negro; and that such discrimination is a
denial to him of the equal protection of
the laws and of his civil rights guaran-
teed by the constitution and laws of the
United States. to which ruling of the court
the plaintiff in error duly excepted which
exception appears of record in the case.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.
Because the court of criminal appeals
should have reversed the case because of
the error in the trial court in refusing to
permit the plaintiff in error to Introduce
evidence in support Of and to prove the al
legations of his motions to quash the in
dictment and to quash the panel of petit
jurors impaneled to try said cause and in
disposing of said motions without permit
ting an investigation of the matters OF
fact therein alleged; to which action of
the court the plaintiff in error duly ex-
cepted, which exception appears of record
in the case.
Wherefore, the plaintiff in error prays
that the judgment and sentence of the
said trial court and of the said court OF
criminal appeals of the State of Texas be
I reversed and held for naught.
y .g.4-lS !~s~ MILFORD H. Smith,
Attorney for Seth Carter. Plaintiff in
Error.
1t is not considered necessary in this
. DTleI TO dILeHpt 10 review IUe testimony
of the great number of witnesses in the
case in order to make out, on behalf of
defendant in error, a case of murder in
the first degree. The testimony shows
that plaintiff in error was desperately in
love with Bertha Brantley long before she
obtained divorce from her husband.
which occurred November 10, 1897, just
twelve days before her death. This was
a case of deliberate murder in the first
| degree perpetrated by plaintiff in error,
arising out of his enraged Jealousy upon
hearing that Alberta was about to marry
Dennis Brantley.
ARGUMENT.
This is not a case in which there was
any attempt to remove the case from the
criminal district court of Galveston county
Into the circuit court of the United states
by or under the authority of article GAL, re-
| vised statutes of the United States.
There is no allegation made nor ques
ton raised that the constitution or laws
of the State of Texas in any way discrim-
mated against the negro because OF his
race or color or on account OF MS pre-
4 vious condition of servitude. The only
question presented Is whether plaintiH 10
error has been denied by the State courts
Iany rights, franchises or immunities as
guaranteed him by the Federal constitI-
ton and laws. If he has. then under the
decisions of this court his injury can De
redreSSe1 by the exercise Oh the TeNlsoi y
power of this court The plaintiff in er-
ror alleges that he was disseminated
against because of his race and color, and
denied his civil rights under the consti-
tuition and laws of the United States. for
the alleged reason that the jury commits
sioners. consisting of three persons. whose
duty it Is under the laws of the State OF
4 Texas to select grand and petit jurors
for the ensuing term of the court failed
to select any negroes 10 be members OF
said grand jury and petit jury because OF
, their race and color He further alleges
in his motion to auash the indictment that
negroes have been excluded from serving
on any jury in said criminal district courl
, for great many years on account of their
race and color which is discrimination
) against him and denial to him of his
just rights under the Federal constitution
, and laws. because he is person o. color
known as a negro.
The act of congress of March /, 1873
chapter ia. provides that mo citizen, pos
. sesslng all other qualifications which are
: or may be prescribed by law. shall be dis
4 qualified from service as grand or petit,
1 jurors in any court of the United States
3 or Of any State on account Of race. coloi
+ or previous condition OF seryitude.'
In the case of Neal VS.. Delaware 10,