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.
Houston, Charles H.
Displaying 13 - 24 of 33
Praecipe for subpoena in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada, requesting that a subpoena be issued for Duke Diggs, Robert S. Cobb, James Mason Carter, J. Harvey Jefferson, Alex L. Hicks, Lee W. DeCrouch, Fred Wilson, and Chares E. Robinson, Sr. to appear as witnesses for the plaintiff on October 22, 1940.
Praecipe for subpoena in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada, requesting that a subpoena be issued for Kenneth Logan and J. P. Washington to appear as witnesses for the plaintiff on October 22, 1940.
Letter from Judge John C. Collet to plaintiff's attorney Charles H. Houston regarding Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Collet writes to confirm the plaintiff's amended petition was received and filed, and assuring Houston that he will be informed if there are any complaints about the form of filing of the petition.
Letter from Judge John C. Collet to plaintiff's attorney Charles H. Houston regarding Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Collet writes to confirm receipt of Houston's letter requesting a hearing on May 13, but reports that he will not be in court in Jefferson City on that date.
Amendment to complaint in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The plaintiff's attorneys amend Bluford's original complaint by adding text to provide that Bluford knew that Lincoln University did not offer graduate or undergraduate work in journalism.
Amendment to amended second complaint in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada.
Telegram from plaintiff's attorney Charles H. Houston to Judge John C. Collet regarding Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Houston writes that, while research is completed for the Bluford case, he is physically unable to complete a memorandum at that time.
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.
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.
Memorandum from Lucile Bluford's attorney Charles Houston to University of Missouri attorneys William S. Hogsett, Kenneth Teasdale, and Rubey Hulen providing notice of a motion to be submitted on behalf of Bluford, and including a registered mail receipt certifying that the notice was provided.