Show FIRST DIS I 1 I 1 important colored rights case before judge miner A 1 0 ILL cuter fifty dollar dollars far for being maui refused a bill bit k la in iha the hot aprin sprin spring 13 ake badges charge to 1 the ali jori jury A p peculiar case the first of ito its kind meed in utah courts came tip me ever before judge miner yesterday rhy solomon soloman I 1 gunter a negro sued the hot ila t springs add and health desort company for damages to bis his feelings for being refused a bath in the public pool ne one bright sunday afternoon last august gunter purchased a ticket on the regular springs bathing train for fitly fifty centa cents which also entitled him tor to a bath in the large pool upon arr arria IV ing at the great health resort gunter ganter presented his ticket for or a bath and was refused bv by the manager but bat told that he could have a private tab tub this snub gunter alleges so injured his delicate feelings that he was of the opinion that would not be too much for or the privation of not get tin ting g a I 1 warm soak an and d BO so brought suit inthe in the first district court painter murphy represented the plaintiff and kemball allison appeared for the defendant the facts in the case as a e related here were acknowledged at the me trial and it was not necessary Y to examine any witnesses it judge miners charge w which aich I 1 is here given in full is one of interest at and may be said to be strictly Ile republican publican I 1 I 1 free righta rights and privileges to all american citizens i irrespective of race color or politics CHARGE TO THE JUBY JURY this action is brought gentlemen odthe defendant of the jury ury by the plaintiff against the defendant for the purpose of recovering damages arising from the refusal of the defendant to permit him a colored man to bathe in a public pool in he bathhouse of the defendant I 1 find the be question to be a more difficult one than I 1 first thought it was when the case was first commenced and you MAY find it the same but I 1 think perhaps you will be abla able aft consider the case fairly when you get the law bearing upon the question the law that bears upon on this question I 1 find cred in the united united states statutes of 1881 on page and the preamble to the statutes is as follows whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the eq equality bality of all men before the law and hold bold that it is the duty of government go in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all of whatever na nativity race color or persuasion religious or p political and I 1 it t being the appropriate object ot of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law therefore be it enacted that all persons within within the jurisdiction of the united states shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations ad tm and d ol 01 inns public conveyances on land or water theaters and other places 0 oi I 1 public amusement subject only to the condition and limitations established by law and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color regardless gard less of 0 every previous condition of servitude this statute is applicable to the territory of utah and is the law that governs in this territory in order to illustrate the doctrine of the law it may not be W improper for me to read from a case known as ferguson ag against a dinst kives reported in the lawyers report vol 9 p 1 I in n th this is case it was held by by the loam learned ed judge in a lengthy and able deci decision plon that the righta rights of all american alt citizens were equal under the law without regard to race or color now I 1 do not read that decision fo for any other purpose than to give you an in id idea ea of the instructions that I 1 shall now give you the case that I 1 have read from was where the party was excluded from a restaurant by tha the owner of a restaurant and that was the opinion of the court part of it in that case you are the eole sole judges of the facia facts and the credibility of the wit ceases and of the weight of tho the evidence in this case the defendant would have no right to make regulations and rules that would abridge or take away the rig righta ats of the P plaintiff plaintiff lain tiff accorded him by the law of the land under the statute that I 1 have read to you and if the defendant only allowed the plaintiff plaint lT to bathe in a certain place and excluded him from the open air bathing place where people were generally allowed to bathe then the defendant would do what the law forbids if you find from the proof in ia the case that the defendant denied to the pl plaintiff alLiff full and equal accommodations with others in all cases white or black then the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action if you find that the plaintiff had a ticket which admitted any holder to the public bathing place at the time and place lace in question tl e aaion and that the plaintiff holdi holding n g such ticket was refused the tight light to bathe in such public pool of the defendant with white p people ia I 1 and others and was thereby thereby d denied e equal privileges to such bat bath that were extended by the defendant to white whit 4 people and others then euch such acl by the defendant would ba be a denial donial to the plaintiff ot of a full and equal enjoyment m lent of the accommodations f 21 advantages 1 t facilities and privileges of such public bathing P pool ool aa as provided by law and tho the defendant would be liable ill it you find for the plaintiff tk you ou should assess his damages damar es and they ey should be such damages as you find ho be is entitled to for the loss of time and money be he expended expend ad for the ticket and such other damages aa as you think he is entitled to from the defendant for his refusal to allow him to batho bathe la in fluch such pool the publicity of euch such refusal the pain which lie suffered it i an any in consequence ot of th the wounded feel feelings ings and mental distress suffered if any is proved in consequence of euch such refusal to allow the plaintiff to bathe in the public pool in question kow now these are questions that are submitted to you and under the law you are to pass upon these questions you on are to paso upon a all 11 of them did he ke have a ticket to bathe in that bathing place kept by the defendant it 11 he be had a ticket that ticket would entitle him to the right to bathe provided the ticket waa was issued by the defendant fen dant and that is a question for you to determine under aho admissions and proof in the case and it if he went there for the purpose of taking a bath and waa was den denied e A that privilege even though white people were in the pool a public bathing ivol pool the defendant is liable under the le statue I 1 have read to you ue ile would have 1 the same right to ito go into th that at pool with other people white or black and the regulations of the defendant I 1 I 1 11 1 I 1 1 ab 1 I 1 would not deprive him ol 01 that pr privilege I 1 vii 11 as the defendant would I 1 have lv no n a right to make a regula tion that wo would be contrary to law I 1 think that these explanations are all that are necessary ne cesear the jury after being ag out near nearly ly an hour flour returned a verdict of rio 50 drafes damages for the tho plaintiff tho the case will 1 11 in a all probability go to the supreme a u brome court in addition to the above the following regular business waa was transacted in the case of J T thompson vs kay the trial was continued in the case cise of win wm pierce vs gt stephens buscher a verdict for for plaintiff for IGO was rendered in the case of jones vs jeneen jensen on motion of 11 II 11 II order staying all proceedings edinga until plaintiffs plaintiffs costs cost are taxed was entered in be the case of the idaho forwarding company vs the Fir emens fund insurance Ins aranco company an order was entered extending the time to file statement on motion for a new trial fifteen da days and in the me meantime antimo execution to 9 be 6 stayed on motion of marshall bradley el in the case of john fledderman Hedi Jerman vs robert robinson by consent of kimball allison and on motion of 0 B park an order was entered substituting J S corlew as administrator for the estate of 8 M Pres baw in place of lot 8 M ba one of the defendants |