Press enter after choosing selection

Civil Rights Case

Civil Rights Case image
Parent Issue
Day
11
Month
August
Year
1899
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

A suit was tried in Justice Doty's court yesterday afternoon involving the question of civil rights. It was the case of Joseph Pierce vs. Landlord Ed. E. Jones, of the Hawkins house, Ypsilanti. It grew out of the following facts : Pierce is a well known colored man and on the Fourth of July claimed he was refused a shine at the Hawkins house and later the same day, admission to the dining room because of his color. The case was tried before the following jury: Charles Schott, Harry Benhatn, Joseph Polhemus, Geo. Apfel, Horace Purfield and John Reynolds. The plaintiff was represented by Frank A. Stivers and the defendant by Major Jonh P. Kirk, of Ypsilanti.

The plaintiff claimed he was denied his rights at the hotel because he is a colored man, while the defense claimed he was drunk or acted in an improper manner. Pierce, the plaintiff, testified that he was refused a shine and was told it was because he was a coon. He asked the landlord why he could not have the shine and was told the same thing in substance. He said he then told Landlord Jones he would probably be back to supper. At supper time he went to the office, bought a ticket tendered it to Mr. Jones and was informed that he could not eat in his dining room, but that he would have to eat in the kitchen if he ate at all. Pierce had a policeman accompanying him to hear the conversation.

Frank A. Merchant another colored man who works in the adjoining barber shop swore that Jones refused Pierce admission to the dining room because he was black. Merchant denied that Pierce was drunk or that he acted boisterously. This ended the case of the plaintiff and the defense began its case by putting the defendant on the stand. Jones said Pierce was at his hotel on the Fourth but he swore that he considered Pierce drunk and that he was boisterous. He said Pierce approached him and said he wanted a shine but Jones told him he did not black shoes. That Pierce then said he could not get a shine because he was colored. Jones swore that he had nothing to do wlth the shining business, -that his help did it and had what they made out of it. He swore that nothing was said about Mr. Pierce being a colored man excepting by Pierce himself who said in a loud and boisterous tone that he was refused because he was a colored man. He also swore that Pierce went outside and talked loudly about his treatment. He thought Pierce was drunk. Later he came into supper and because of his condition he refused him admission to the dinning room, but assured him that he would feed him in some other room. He said Pierce was boisterous and be considered him drunk and looking for trouble and ground upon which to base a suit.

Several other witnesses were sworn and testimony was brought out which showed that there was considerable boisterous and loud talk between Mr. Pierce and Mr Jones.

The attorneys then made their arguments to the jury. Mr. Stivers claiming this was a plain case of discrimination against a man because he was black, that this was a violation of law which required that there should be no such discrimination. He thought, therefore, there should be substantial damages given his client. Mr. Kirk contended there was no such discriminative as at least one other colored man had been fed at the hotel as had been shown by testimony. He claimed Pierce was in such a condition that he was not entitled to the accommodations of the hotel, and that the case was one of sour grapes for that reason. The jury after long deliberation gave Pierce six cents damages. It is not known whether the case will be carries up. It has not as yet been settled.