Show F ra U d I 1 6 fl 8 0 V S 11 ia 11 V F AMUIL t I 1 I 1 U it OR I 1 R 0 roil F M E 59 N U lu n H a TO AD 3 ill 1 fl 0 1 S I N 9 IV R LN DIES I 1 rhode awde asland supreme court declares the uniform does not entitle I 1 wearer to special privileges action for breach of contract I 1 I 1 covering cost of admission suggested I 1 I 1 providence R L I 1 april 20 chlof yeoman fred buenzle who was barred jed irom from a dance hall in newport because as he claims ho he waa was wear ing the uniform of the united states navy can recover at law only the price of hla his admission ticket according to a decision handed down by william 11 sweetland chief presiding officer othe rhode island superior court the decision which Is long and which overruled the demurrer raised by the alie defendants bays says the legal rights of a man wearing tho the united states uniform are not different from those of any well behaved who phases possesses aes a ticket of admission to any place judge sweetland rules that buenzle excluded because ho be was wearing a i i naval uniform la in in no different poal pogi 1 tion legally from one who Is to excluded i because bo he Is not in evening dress or for any other reason though it may have been but tho e whim of tho defendant in other words tho the judge said the proprietors of a place of amusement aro are not under any obligations to admit any person whom they I 1 may choose to exclude suit was brought against the now port amusement association proprietor proprietors of a dancing pa pavilion villon at N newport low from which buenzle claimed ho he was excluded last september because he waa was wearing a naval uniform tho the management tendered to him the 25 cents he had paid for hla his ticket but kuenzle immediately brought suit for damages he was given give financial support by naval officers stationed at newport and president t roosevelt cent rent a check to help defray the ex oz of prosecuting the tile case the court holds also that the ahe action 5 not properly one for damages of I 1 ibo wrongful exclusion of tho the plaintiff but Is an action ution for or breach of 0 contract ct because of ot the tiler failure of the defendants to carry out tho contract mido whon thoy algid tho ticket this covers only the recovery of tho jhb admission price and the tile expense incurred in atte attempting to obtain admission to the pavilion on the breach of contract phase of the case tho the demurrers of the defendants are overruled and they are ordered to plead on or before april |