Phoenix tribune., 1918-08-03
IMPORTANT RULING
BY NEW YORK COURT


Isaac Goldgraben keeps in Harlem
restaurant where colored persons are
served with meals. Arthur Cohn, who
is described in a legal paper herein
after retired to as "a Hebrew white
person, went into Goldgraben's res
taurant with colored man named
Williams for the purpose of getting a
meal The head waiter refused to
serve Cohn and Williams on the
ground that it was against the rules
of the house to serve a mixed party"
Cohn brought suit against Goldgra-
ben in the Second District Municipal
court, where the complaint was dis
missed after triad before a jury. The
plaintiff took the case to the Appel
late division of the Supreme Court,
and that bench has just upheld the
judgment Of the lower court. The ma
iority opinion is written by Mr.. JUS
tice Whitaker, who says that there
was no refusal to serve because of
color or race:
The plaintiff was white and his
companion was colered They were
both refused service, so it could not
have been on account of color
The rule that mixed parties should
not be served applied to white as well
as colored. There was no discrimina-
ton as to one color in favor of an
other
"The record plainly indicates that
both parties would have been served
at separate tables and that plaintiff
knew this and refused service at
separate table. How can it be said
then that he was refused service on
account of his color.
1t appears that the original com
plant alleged that the plaintiff was
a descendant of the Jewish or Hebraic
race" and that refreshments was re
fused him because of his race. This
latter allegation was abandoned at
the trial and the case was decided on
the matter Of color only.
The decision of the appellate court
was not unanimous, for Mr. Justice
Blur dissented as follows:
THE uncontradicted evidence in
this case is to the effect that plaintiff
a white man. as the guest of one
Williams, colored man, went to de
fendants restaurant to be served AT
the time they entered all the guests
and walters in defendants restauT-
ant were colored. AS plaintiff and
Williams seated themselves the head
waiter said to them: Gentlemen,
am sorry | cannot serve you. 1t is
against the rules Of the house to serve
a mixed party Williams testified:
They said: they cannot
serve a colored and white person to-
gether Whereupon plaintiff and
Williams, after some discussion, left
the premises.
"The Civil Rights law, as amended
by Chapter 265 of the Laws of 1913.
Section 40, provides that no owner of
a restaurant shall directly or indi-
rectly refuse, withhold from or deny
to any person any of the accommoda-
tions, advantages or privileges there
of on account of race,
creed or color 1t seems to me TO be
clear that plaintiff was, on the occa-
sion in question, denied the privileges
of defendants restaurant because he
was white. The defendant virtually
said to plaintiff if you were colored
and came here with Williams you
would be served, but being white.
we will not serve you The law nat
urally does not undertake to define
or even to indicate which if any race
or color may be regarded as superior.
Its sole and manifest purpose is to
prevent discrimination on that ac-
count"
1t would seem to the laymen that
Mr.. Justice Bijur's point is we'll taken
and that Mr. Cohn should not have
been denied the accommodation, ad-
vantage or privilege of sitting at the
same table with Mr. Williams