National Archives at Kansas City, Missouri

Displaying 97 - 108 of 790

Letter from defense attorney William S. Hogsett to U.S. District Court deputy clerk Charles Seibold regarding Civil Case No. 128: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Hogsett confirms receipt of Seibold's telegram informing him that Judge John Collet directed the Bluford motion be continued from Saturday to a future undecided date.

Praecipe for subpoena in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada, requesting that a subpoena be issued for James Mason, Earl F. Conley, Robert Turner, Effie Jackson, Owen Perkins, Hubert E. Washington, William Carter, and Earl Saxton to appear as witnesses for the plaintiff on October 22, 1940.

Letter from U.S. District Court Clerk A. L. Arnold to attorney Carl R. Johnson, regarding Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada, inquiring as to whether the plaintiff has yet filed an appeal.

Memorandum opinion in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada, regarding the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. Judge J. C.

Challenge to the petit jury panel in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Bluford challenges that the jury selected for her trial consists solely of whtie jurors, and that "all qualified Negroes have been excluded solely because of race or color" in violation of the U.S.

Affidavit of Lucile Bluford supporting challenge to panel in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Bluford and her attorneys provided support to her challenge that black citizens were illegally removed from the jury pool for her trial, resulting in an all white jury panel.

Affidavit of Duke Diggs supporting challenge to panel in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Duke Diggs, a resident of Jefferson City, attests that "both from his own personal knowledge and from the general reputation of the community [he] knows that Negroes have never been called to serve as jurors" in the U.S.

Brief in support of defendant's motion to dismiss in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The defendant's attorneys argue for the dismal of Bluford's suit against Canada, the registrar of the University of Missouri, stating that she has no standing for the damages she seeks.

Affidavit of Robert S. Cobb in support of challenge to panel in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Cobb, an attorney in Jefferson City, attests that he knows "both from his personal knowledge and general community reputation that Negroes have not been called for jury service in [the U.S.

Reply brief of defendant on motion to dismiss in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The document responds to a memo by Bluford's attorneys, which in turn responds to Canada's attorneys brief requesting dismissal of the case.

Amended motion for new trial in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada, wherein Bluford's attorney Charles Houston moves to set aside the verdict and grant her a new trial.

Order from Judge J. C. Collet in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Collet dismisses the first count of the case, stating that Bluford "has made no attempt to amend the first count of her complaint in an effort to comply with the opinion of this COurt" from April 6, 1940.

Pages

KANSAS CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY | DIGITAL HISTORY