Subpoena request for St. Louis Call managing editor Elwood E. Randol or Chester E. Stovall, editor of the paper, in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The defense team requests that the U.S. District Court order Elwood E. Randol, managing editor of the St. Louis Call, or Chester E. Stovall, editor of the paper, appear in court on October 21, 1940.
Answer in Civil Action No. 42: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The defense attorneys response to the amended second count of the plaintiff's complaint, in which they argue that the plaintiff "fails to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted," that Canada denies he was an "officer" of the University of Missouri, and also denies that he accepted Bluford to the university. They also assert that Canada had no right or ability to register Bluford as an MU student under Missouri law, among other points of argument.
Letter from defense attorney Rubey M. Hulen to the U.S. District Court clerk regarding Civil Case No. 128: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Hulen writes that defendant Canda's full name is "Silas Woodson Canada." At the time, Bluford was the managing editor of the Kansas City Call and her effort to gain admittance to the masters degree program at MU's School of Journalism, and repeated denials due to her race, lead to a a series of lawsuits that eventually reached the Missouri Supreme Court.
Letter from defense attorney Rubey M. Hulen to the U.S. District Court clerk in Civil Case No. 128: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. Hulen writes to enclose a form of order to extend time for pleas and filing an answer in the case, which he says he has discussed with Judge John Collet, and asks that Collet sign the order. A handwritten note at the bottom of the letter notes that Hulen has phoned and now wants to delay the order.
Motion for more definite statement under Rule 12(e) and to require plaintiff to separately state and number in Civil Case No. 128: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The defense team moves that the plaintiff be required to "make a more definite statement of the several claims for relief and causes of action," and to "state in separate counts the various claims founded upon separate transactions or occurrences under Rule 10(b)." They argue that the different types of claims being made must be dealt with separately. The defendant also demands a jury trial in the case.
Motion for directed verdict on Count 1 and motions to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 in Civil Case No. 128: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The defense team moves the court to direct the jury to return a verdict against the plaintiff in Count 1 of the amended complaint, arguing that evidence is insufficient to prove the claims, that there is no evidence Bluford applied to Lincoln University in time for the university to establish a graduate journalism program, that University of Missouri registrar Canada acted in accordance with state law in refusing Bluford registration, and other points.
Defendant's requested instructions in Civil Case No. 128: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada.
Answer in Civil Case No. 128: Lucile Bluford v. S.W. Canada. The defense responds to Bluford's complaint by arguing that she has no grounds upon which to make this claim, by denying that Canada acts as an "officer" of the University of Missouri in his role as registrar, and affirming the role of Lincoln University to serve the black residents of Missouri by establishing equivalent programs to MU, among other points.