Show COLORED JUROR LOSES Supreme Court Passes on f I McPhersons Case jl NO CAUSE FOR DAMAGES I Judgment of Lower Court Affirmed in the Suit of J Gordon McPherson I Against Edward McCarrick Me i I Phcrsons Removal from the Ben brook Jury Did Not Givo Him Legal Claim Against JrlcCarrick Judgments Affirmed in Road land I Lien Cases J i I I Tin chances > orL Gordon McPherson torecover damages from Edward Mc Carrick because McCarrick bad been tiio means of preventing McPhcrson from silting as a juror in the trial of J j H Uenbroolc for tIme muicler of Burton Bur-ton Cj Morris have gone glimmering The Supreme court yesterday banded I down an opinion alllrmlng the ruling j of the trinl court In sustaining the defendants de-fendants demurrer to the complaint on the ground of no cause of action McPhcrson who Is a colored man was accepted it will be remembered and I sworn aj > a juror In the case named jTcCarrickobjected l to sitting Dna Jury i with a man of color and through rep i rescntatlons made by McCarrick the co excused McPherson with the consent con-sent of the attorneys on both sides of Urn case McPherson claimed that he had I been greatly humiliated and put t3fhamc I In the community and suffered I I greatly In mind because of the open and I public insuli tp his damage in the sum I u f fJoOflO HH J u19Jt12 In Juror fees 1 i The Supreme court in afllrming the 1 tHai ttourt In sustaining the demurrer I Says tho plaintiff had no cause of ac tin lIe was not libeled his character ismas not iss tiled lie was not assaulted qi abused and ii1c was damaged ni aJIn was by the Judge nnd the at II lorneys who excused him The sole charge against McCarrick was thathe objected to serving with the plaintiff because he was a colored man Wblla such objection the opinion says was frivolous unwarranted unwar-ranted and unworthy one who had taken an oath lo do his duty as a juror still under the I circumstances as shown itiH not such as to cause a pecuniary liability Jf however it be true as seems to bo Indicated by the record I that the respondent sat quietly by without I with-out objection until all the jurors were I I examined and sWorn to try the case J I and then for the first time made his objection maliciously and that such objection led lo the discharge of himself him-self and the appellant from Iho Jury the court to maintain ItsoWi1 dignity would have been justified In adjudging him gullly of contempt and In imposing an adequate penalty thercfoi Such I conduct and trifling ought not to be permitted In a court of justice Tho opinion was written by Chief Justice Kartell and concurred in by Justices Jus-tices Miner and Baskin |